



















^ •••• Ar •»' ay 


- *> 


<v ^ -- a- V *— 1 5 r °* *•>• 

* %f :Mk x \/ : f§|: V" flli: V 

•+* - t>' V, . *"^^> »* >• ■_ * 4^ ^p, * * *4 * 



x° Tp. '. 

v*-^V V 

c\\ , » • . ^ N 

•*■ C\ <0 » *_ /v * ** 

• ^ A* v 

1 .° ^ * 


• 



m o 

;• <y * ° 

TV* A <* 

:£Mtd' "W - 


'*.T^’ y <V *»<’*' f°' v ■* 

*. a> 4 Va« **?„ <4 . vsiv * % ^ 
- 'M&VA 0 '**& v* v 

: A v«* o^f^‘ 

* A> % ^ - vJfy&V ^ 




<b«/> 

p / A? °$\ * 

‘ A 0 ^ d’ <X, '“• ‘ 

, 0 * • tZJ*. *©., A* ** V J> 1 % ^#> 

- c /«£§§Xtrv- ° 4 ^ *&{$&> * ^ ~ * 

- ^oK ^*cr 


l A Q, 




a> -* '«~<amf' P’%. y*^ 

r e. ♦..••* y*’’ 0< V■5.°° ^'*■•■•** y °°> ‘■'^'j 

’%d Y : fMM%i 'MSm.' "w » .,, '“ 

■r* ^V S ^xiSpy ^ ^ ^ oilSP/ ^ ^ 



* v 

r»V 


<* o 



ilV" . • w ' • * ^ 


o • A 


» * \ ^ 
; ^ v< 


* Ta 4 ' 


o V 


%‘^V °o *^,.*" f 0 ° \y*.Vc* 

•- V ^ - - * 


„ tv _ _ _ t,. .« / H ‘f \ T^Hkia'* ^ 

'f'. ^ . ^M W Ll .. %.d . A i ,MSttrS ^ 



» />_S J 

* <3 ^ • i 

* A° .. ^** vv^ 



^ . 

v-*.^ y 

!'♦ \> V * f .* °- 'o 




* 4? %> * 


t. • 



» * A V ♦ j 

vv 



o rt o % «y o ^ -^- 1 


I «* -^_ /v * ' 


* <P ♦ av yv o i 

* 0 V *o. ^ 7 vT» 



• 



>:■ \> 





C.^'Ofv -* ° aV^> 

” * <.y ^v> • « Vv v\ 

4 4/ ci* > v 1 

<p^ ry ,**•* 'Iq .v<. „ 

, ^ A ^ ^vWT^L* aN ♦ 



» 'y A’ K 


* o V . 

- 0 - 7 ^ 




°o y \'^^* y h °o • • y ^ '*♦... 

•». %, y ,vv% 'b v % .*•»> y. y -> 

% % y ,‘^jfok*. a /aVa- ^ y » 

•* ^ ^ *yjw,* y * A ‘A^#,* y ^ “y^w 4 y ^ 
it* a <» -«. ■» * y -a, *•>;. r* a <,'•.»• ,ci 

> y~/r??^+ %, cr .^1% °o fMtmL? % ^ 




■C> y » » o 


4 ' 



Jw->_ '♦ ^ V % » ’ • #. (\^ - ♦ • , ^vV " . *1* 

II: +t£* aft* V A: V" * S/ 


;* ^ A, 

••** A° ^ '... 

r\V o * « 

C O o V- ♦ O 

M r?> 0 rtv^sssall^ • 9V 


<**0 

«i o 

- V«s 




r oK 


.«»-.* ^ *+ 

<* *°*‘* <0 *'T7>’ A 

-& v ^ f 0* o ®!* ♦ ^o . *'* 

♦ srr/t/?^ r v^ „ 0 % o ^ * 


: : 



++$ 


/^. . *^vyy/«p * r\ \t »^|I\w\NN> » . v ^ 

O «. » * O ^ (1* * • 

^ # ' 1 V * • » o 0 A 

^ -aO^ .vv . V V V , 

*$> eP> 9> v> *■ 



n»* # 



• * 

* 4> > - 


c- * 

°* * 

’ • •- o^ 

V ~ 

y** - :, :t 

• * «> V 

vV ° * * A G ^ ^ r. • • O’ <V -o . * 

♦ < 5 *^ /V» o a a A >" , A. 

1 0 *_*S$^W* O ^^/rTT^ + 4* cP 0 

* Aft % ^S^vArnL* «N * dew/ZAs T V ^ 

*- °*asMV ■*£>** i 





*9 ^ 

**-° 

jSr * 

* <\ v #- ^ < r.v v 


I.. V ' 0 f ... ^Js ,••••*■#* % *..’•* ^o° V *rjv* 

30k*. > ;€*$&• %. ^ *)$&iA* %> & **<Ste*i'* ■A 

tl :^H^: - mWA *. Av */$l a, M: 



* 

o 0 ^ 



•.** A -0.4- ^ 

t # # ^. ry^ 5 o * • „ 

^ *W%4* V c° ■• 

«. &W/Z2> * %* 4 ' 

I- A' o % 





« • 


°*U 9 ' 1 * •» 0 .v O * •, -. - 

^ V^ i» T * J 

^ ^ ^ ^ "V .#*■ 




9 ^ 


V 




’ *° ^"••TT* # 

aO %VVL% ^ 5, 

♦■ - A « *P ^ A O' V * J\ y. 



aV<\ * A *7 O"* 

,* 4* % -JW* / ^ -w 

>••* .v^ V* '••»* A°^ Ar V s 

a 4 • ‘". cr «• * *. ”*b . 4 4 v 

J ♦ Vy^ps Y V 0 •^f55vW > . O J'O’ 


8 o 






W 

* a4^ 

■ A A 

^ t 0 ,. - » 

* v* o^ 


• ,^°- 





















9/37 2 ~ 

C7th Congress,) HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES. (Document 
1st Session, j 1 No. g4 # 


CONTESTED ELECTION CASE OF HENRY T. RAINEY v. 
GUY L. SHAW. 


COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRE¬ 
SENTATIVES TRANSMITTING CONTESTED ELECTION CASE OF 
HENRY T. RAINEY v. GUY L. SHAW, FROM THE TWENTIETH CON¬ 
GRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 



May 16, 1921.—Referred to the Committee on Elections No. 2 and ordered to be 

printed. 


House of Representatives, Clerk’s Office, 

Washington, D. C., May 13, 1921. 
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: I have the honor to lay before the House of Representatives 
the contest for a seat in the House of Representatives for the Sixty- 
seventh Congress of the United States for the twentieth district, State 
of Illinois, Henry T. Rainey against Guy L. Shaw, notice of which has 
been filed in the office of the Clerk of the House, and also transmit 
herewith original testimony, papers, and documents relating thereto. 

In compliance with the act approved March 2, 1887, entitled “An 
act relating to contested-election cases,” the Clerk has opened and 
printed the testimony in the above case, and such portions of the 
testimony as the parties in interest agreed upon or as seemed proper 
to the Clerk, after giving the requisite notices, have been printed and 
indexed, together with the notices of contest, and the answers thereto, 
and original papers and exhibits have been sealed up and are ready 
to be laid before the Committee on Elections. 

Two copies of the printed testimony in the aforesaid case have been 
mailed to the contestant and the same number to the contestee. The 
briefs when prepared will be laid before the Committee on Elections, 
to which the case shall be referred. 

Yours, respectfully, 

Wm. Tyler Page, 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

o 














^ ... ,y,u. | ■; - ■ ; •• . : -y' 

<0 i 


i 

0* 


5l 


V’M ’ > • 1 l 1 • ' 

' IA i.' ! ■ } ) 


1 

■. . 1; ■ ■ ' • .• 1 


' 

: i I 

v; ■; { W A 

Mih ' 1 - • 



CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE 


OF 


| ^ 

HENRY Tf ftAINEY 

V. 


GUY L. SHAW 


FROM THE 

TWENTIETH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 
OF ILLINOIS 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 











CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE 

OF 

HENRY T. RAINEY v. HUY L. SHAW 

FROM THE 

TWENTIETH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 


NOTICE OF CONTEXT, 


To Guy L. Shaw. 

Beard stolen. III.: 


Washington, D. C., December 16, 1920. 


Y^ou are hereby notified that I will contest your election as a Member of the 
House of Representatives of the United States from the twentieth congressional 
district of Illinois for the following reasons: 

1. You did not file with the Clerk of the House of Representatives the state¬ 
ment required to be tiled before the 1920 pr.inary under the Federal campaign 

publicity act. 

2. You did not file with the Clerk of the House of Representatives the state¬ 
ment required to be tiled after the 1920 primary under the Federal campaign 

publicity act. 

3. You did not file with the Clerk of the House of Representatives the state¬ 
ment required to be tiled before the 1920 general election under the Federal 
campaign publicity act. 

4. You did not file with the Clerk of the House of Representatives the state¬ 
ment required to be filed after the 1920 general election under the Federal 
campaign publicity act. 

5. You did not, as required by law. account for $1,000 donated to you by the 
Republican national congressional committee on the Stli day of October, 1920, 
to be used by you in your campaign. 

6. You did not account for $1,000, as required by law, donated to you by the 
Republican national congressional committee on the 23d day of October, 1920, 
to be used by you in your campaign. 

7. You did not in any manner in any statement filed by you in compliance 
with the law account for further campaign contributions received by you from 
other sources. 

8. You converted to your own use a considerable portion of the moneys do¬ 
nated to you by the Republican national congressional committee, and you did 
not use the moneys they donated to you in payment of your expenses as a can¬ 
didate for Congress in the twentieth congressional district of Illinois, nor did 
you return the unused portions of same. 

9. You converted to your own use and did not use in your campaign for nomi¬ 
nation and election as* a candidate for Congress in the twentieth congressional 
district of Illinois other sums of money contributed from other sources. 

10. You have failed to comply with the Federal act providing for publicity of 
contributions, and if indicted under said act you are liable, upon conviction of the 
four offenses you have committed, to fines amounting in the aggregate not to 
exceed $4,000. or to imprisonment not to exceed in the aggregate four years, 

or to both fines and imprisonment. . „ 

11. If indicted and convicted in the State courts of Illinois for misappropria¬ 
tion of funds contributed for your campaign expenses, you are liable also to the 
penalties provided by the laws of Illinois. 


3 










4 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


You are notified that it is my intention to contest your election and I rely par¬ 
ticularly upon the grounds stated in this notice. 

Henry T. Rainey, Contestant. 


State of Illinois, 

Cass Comity, ss: 

W. W. Dieterich. being duly sworn on his oath, states that he is 44 years of 
age and resides in Beardstown, Cass County, Ill. Affiant further states that on 
the 19th day of December, 1920, he served the above notice on Guy L. Shaw 
by delivering to him a true copy thereof. 

W. W. Dieterich. 


Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20tli day 

[ SEAL. ] 

My commission expires June 17. 1923. 


of December, A. D. 1920. 
E. Miller Dunn. 

Notary Public. 


ANSWER OF CONTESTEE TO NOTICE OF CONTEST. 


Washington, D. C., February 23, 1921. 


Not admitting or confessing the truth of any of the items or specifications 
contained in the notice of contest herein, and denying the sufficiency of said 
notice of contest as a basis for a contest of election of a Representative in Con¬ 
gress, and protesting that such notice, and the matters and things therein con¬ 
tained are scandalous, impertinent, and gratuitously insulting and libelous, the 
said contestee nevertheless makes answer thereto as follows: that is, to say: 

1. He expressly denies the truth of every allegation of fact contained in the 
11 separate items and specifications in said notice of contest. 

2. He denies that he failed or refused to execute and post the several reports 
of receipts and expenditures referred to in specifications Nos. 1, 2. 3, and 4 of 
said notice, with reference to both the primary and the election campaigns in 
the year 1920; and he avers, on the contrary, that the same were made and filed 
pursuant to the acts of Congress in such cases provided ; and he makes reference 
to his affidavit and copies filed with the Clerk of the House on January 31, 1921, 
and makes the same parts hereof for the purposes hereof. 

3. He denies that he failed to account, as required by law, for two separate 
contributions of $1,000 each to his campaign expenses by the Republican na¬ 
tional congressional committee, as referred to in specifications Nos. 5 and 6 of 
said notice of contest, and he avers, on the contrary, that he did fully account 
for and lawfully expend the same in the way and manner set forth in his affi¬ 
davit and copies filed with the Clerk of the House on January 21. 1921, express 
reference being here made in said affidavit and copies for the purposes hereof. 

4. He denies that he received or that he was or is bound to account for any 
further campaign contributions made to or for him during said campaign by 
any person or persons other than said two separate contributions of $1,000 each 
so received from the Republican national congressional committee, as referred 
to in specification No. 7 in said notice of contest. 

5. He denies that he converted to his own use any portion of the contributions 
of the Republican national congressional committee, as charged in specification 
No. 8 of said notice of contest; and he denies that he converted to his own use 
any sums of money contributed from other sources to his said primary and elec¬ 
tion campaigns as charged in specification No. 9 of said notice of contest; and 
he avers, on the contrary, that he received no contributions to said campaigns 
except said two contributions from the Republican national congressional com¬ 
mittee; and he further avers that said sums so contributed were actually and 
lawfully used and expended in said campaigns, as will more fully appear from 
his affidavit and copies filed with the Clerk of the House on January 31 1921 
express reference being made thereto for the purposes hereof. 

0. He denies and resents the matters and things set forth in specifications Nos 
19 and 11 of said notice of contest. 


(. Fui ther answeiing, the contestee avers that the contributions to his said 
piimaij and election campaigns were reasonable in amount and well within the 
amount allowed by law for those purposes; that all of said contributions, to¬ 
gether w itli some money of contestee, were actually and legitimately expended 
m Sam piimaij and election campaigns; that no fraud was practiced by con¬ 
testee, and no elector was corrupted by or for contestee; that contestee assumed 



RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


5 


and believed that this contest would be abandoned, and would not be pursued 
beyond the notice of contest; that he neglected to make and serve this answer 
upon contestant, or to take any steps toward a defense of the same until more 
than 30 days after service on him of the notice of contest; that he had no 
improper or ulterior motive in failing to sooner prepare to defend his right to 
his seat in the House; that the new House to which contestee was elected has 
not yet organized; that no injury to contestant, or to any other person, or to 
the House has followed from a failure to sooner prepare and serve this answer 
on contestant, and that the same ought to be received and treated as if prepared 
and served within the time limited by act of Congress ; that contestee was elected 
by an honest and clear majority of nearly 4,000 votes, and that to deprive him 
of his seat would be unjust to him as well as to the voters of said congressional 
district; that this contest is not made or prosecuted in good faith, but is the 
product of envy and malice. 

Guy L. Shaw, Contestee. 

By William Mumford, Attorney for Contestee. 

DEPOSITIONS IX BEHALF OF CONTESTANT. 


NOTARY PUBLIC’S SUBPCENA. 


District of Columbia, to wit, grcetiny: 

I, Charles E. Gephardt, a notary public in and for the District of Columbia, 
Ido summon T. E. Meeker, 701 Albee Building, Washington, D. C., to be and to 
appear before me at the office of the Clerk of the United States House of Rep¬ 
resentatives, Capitol Building, Washington, D. C., on the 23d day of February, 
A. D. 1921, at 10 o’clock a. m., to answer as a witness in the matter of the con¬ 
tested election case in which Henry D. Rainey is contestant and Guy L. Shaw 
is contestee, and bring with him a copy of a certain letter dated October 11, 
1920, addressed by the Republican National Congressional Committee to all 
Republican nominees for Representative in Congress to be voted on at the gen- 
; eral election held November 2, 1920, and copies of all forms for making reports 
of all expenses of said nominees for Representative which accompanied said 
letter of October 11, 1920, that was sent to all Republican nominees for Repre¬ 
sentative in Congress by the said Republican National Congressional Committee. 

This subpoena is issued in accordance with Revised Statutes, section 110 of 
the act of February 19, 1851, chapter 11. 9 Statutes at Large, page 568, section 
3; act of January 23, 1869. chapter 15, 15 Statutes at Large, page 287: and 
Revised Statutes 117. act of January 10, 1873, chapter 24. 17 Statutes at Large, 
page 408, section 2. 

Given under my hand and seal this 18th day of February, A. D. 1921. 

[seal.] Charles E. Gebhardt, 

Notary Public, District of Columbia. 

My commission expires December 4, 1921. 

The original of the above copy served on T. C. Meeker by me personally. 

Charles E. Gebhardt. 

Depositions of Henry T. Rainey, William Tyler Page, and T. C. Meeker, 
taken before me, Charles E. Gebhardt, a notary public in and for the District 
of Columbia, at the office of William Tyler Page, Clerk of the United States 
House of Representatives, Capitol Building, Washington, D. C., on the 23d day 
of February, 1921, at 10 o’clock a. m. 

Present: Henry T. Rainey, contestant; John F. McCarron, attorney for con¬ 
testant ; Guy L. Shaw, contestee; William Mumford, attorney for contestee; 
William Tyler Page; T. C. Meeker. 


Whereupon the said HENRY T. RAINEY, being present, was duly sworn by 
me as a witness in the above matter to testify to the truth and nothing but the 
truth, and he testified as follows: 

Examination by Mr. McCarron : 

O Will vou please state your full name?—A. My name is Henry T. Rainey; 
I live at Carrollton, Ill.; I am the contestant in this proceeding. Oil the 16tli 
day of December, 1920, I mailed to Guy L. Shaw, contestee, at his post-office 
address Beardstown, Ill., a letter in a registered envelope, a copy of which I 
have retained and which I introduce and ask that it be marked Exhibit A.- 



6 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


The letter was accompanied by a notice of contest and assigning certain reasons, 
dated also the 16th day of December, 1920. In my letter to Mr. Shaw I asked 
him to acknowledge receipt of the same, and inclosed two copies, but I never 
heard from Mr. Shaw in the matter at all. On a later day I, however, received 
back through the post office the notice which accompanied the letter by reg¬ 
istered mail, by which it appears that the registered letter was delivered to 
Guy L. Show on the 20th day of December, 1920—the letter which contained 
the notice of contest. I offer in evidence the return receipt, signed by Guy L. 
Shaw, and ask that it be marked “Exhibit B.” On the 20tli day of December, 
1920, notice was personally served on Mr. Shaw by Hon. W. H. Dieterieh, one 
of my attorneys, who lives in Beardstown, Ill. I have here the original notice 
which was served by Mr. Dietericli, which appears by his affidavit of service. 
I introduce and ask that it be marked “ Exhibit C.” An election in Illinois at 
which candidates for Congress were selected by the respective parties—the 
Democratic Party and the Republican Party—was held under the laws of 
Illinois on the Wednesday after the second Tuesday in September, which would 
be the 15th day of September. The canvass of votes cast at the election 
for members of Congress and the proclamation issued by the governor under 
the statutes of Illinois was completed on the 1st day of December, 1920, by the 
State officers authorized by law to conduct the canvass, and on the 1st day of 
December, 1920, the governor issued his proclamation declaring this canvass. 
I have here a letter from Louis L. Emmerson, secretary of state, dated January 
26. 1921, corroborating my recollection of the matter and advising me that the 
canvass was completed and the governor’s proclamation was issued on the 1st 
day of December, 1920, which 1 offer in evidence and ask that it be marked 
“ Exhibit D.” 

Mr. Mumford. Contestee objects to the admissibility of this document, because 
it is insufficiently certified and it is immaterial. 

The Witness. At the primary election held on the 15th day of September, 
1920, for the selection of candidates for Congress, Hon. Guy L. Shaw, of Beards¬ 
town, Ill., was the only Republican candidate; and at the elections which fol¬ 
lowed on the 2d day of November, 1920, Hon. Guy L. Shaw was the Republican 
candidate for Congress in the twentieth district of Illinois; I refer to the selec¬ 
tion of primary candidates for Congress and to the election for the selection of 
a Representative in Congress from the twentieth district of Illinois. 

I might further state that the notice of contest served by me upon Mr. Shaw 
was served within the time required by law. and that the time provided for Mr. 
Shaw to answer the same has passed. No answer was ever served on me until 
a few minutes ago in this room, when Mr. Mumford, representing Mr. Shaw, 
tendered me what he states purports to be an answer to my notice of contest. I 
also have here the notice to Mr. Shaw of my intention to take this testimony 
to-day in this office in the city of Washington, served by Mr. W. H. Dieterieh, 
and ask that it be attached to the exhibits and marked “ Exhibit E.” 

Mr. Mumford. No objection. 

Mr. McCarron. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Mumford : 

Q. Mr. Rainey, in your notice of contest I see that you make 11 specifications 
of the particular grounds upon which you propose to prosecute this contest. The 
first four of these grounds, as specified in your notice of contest, relate to the 
alleged failure upon the part of Mr. Shaw to report to the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives, under the various acts of Congress, his receipts and expendi¬ 
tures in his primary and election campaigns. What basis did you have, Mr. 
Rainey, for alleging that these reports had not been made?—A. I made a search 
in the office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives in the place where 
they should have been deposited; also in the record book where receipt should 
have been entered and found that none had been received, and that neither 
had any entry been made in the usual and proper place in the records of 
the office of the Clerk. I also talked with Mr. Hollingsworth, who was in 
that particular room in the Clerk’s office, where these records were kept 
and he advised me that there was no record of the receipt of any publicity or 
expense reports from Mr. Shaw. We also talked to Hon. William Tyler Page, 
Clerk of the House of Representatives, to whom the reports should be made, and 
he told me that Mr. Shaw’s record in his office in this particular was blank, and 
he had no record. 

Q. Did you make any other or further investigation upon the subject before 
or after you made this search?—A. No. 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


7 


Q. Did you make any investigation at Beardstown as to the deposit in the 
post office there of these reports?—A. No. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Dr. Schweer, tlie postmaster at Beardstown?—A. 
Yes. 

Q- Are your relations with him intimate?—A. Rather. 

Q- And have been for a number of years?—A. Yes. 

Q. Assuming for the purpose of this question that Dr. Schweer said that 
Mr. Shaw would never get his seat in Congress, and that if elected would never 
be seated, have you any idea as to the purpose or theory he had in his mind 
when he made such a statement, if he made it? 

Mi’. Mc(' akron. I object to that question. 

A. I do not know that he made it, and whether he had any purpose in his 
mind when he made it. If he did make such a statement it was after I 
tiled this contest, and the reason for it probably was that I had subsequently 
advised him there were no expense reports on record here from Mr. Shaw. 

^ Q. Have you received any notice of any sort from the postmaster at 
Beardstown, directly or indirectly, as to whether these reports have been 
deposited in the post office by Mr. Shaw?—A. No. 

o. Have you any recollection of any communications?—A. No. 

(>. Do you know whether Mr. Dieterich has had any communications or 
conversations?—A. I do not know. 

Q- You are not advised?—A. No. I do not know what conversation he has 
had with Mr. Schweer. 

(j. In your fifth specification, Mr. Ilainey, you complain or charge that the 
contestee did not account for the $1,000 received by him from the Republican 
national congressional committee on the 8th day of October, 1920, to be used 
by him in his campaign. Just what do you mean by saying he did not account 
for it?—A. That he filed no account. 

(>. You refer to the reports which you specify in the first four paragraphs?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

o. In your sixth specification you state that he did not account for the 
$1,000 received by him from the same committee on the 23d of October, 1920, 
to be used in his campaign. That also relates to his failure to make these 
reports?—A. l'es, sir. 

Q. And to nothing else?—A. No. 

(.}. In your seventh specification you say that the contestee did not in any 
manner account for further campaign contributions received from other sources. 
What other sources do you refer to?—A. I do not know of any. At that time 
I suppose he received contributions from the State committee, which made 
contributions, but I do not know whether he did or whether he did not. 

Q. So you did not have any knowledge on which to base this specification at 
all?—A. None at all, except that my inference was that I supposed he received 
them, as they had plenty of money in this district. 

Q. Does the specification justify, in your opinion, the charge that the act 
mentioned in the notice has been done?—A. That is a matter of practice 
before the committee. I do not know the practice before the committee, but 
that is a matter which is subject to be answered within the time provided 
by law. 

Q. In your eighth specification you make the charge that this contestee con¬ 
verted to his own use a considerable portion of the moneys received by him for 
campaign purposes from the Republican National Congressional Committee.—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Upon what basis or authority do you make that charge?—A. Because I 
saw no evidence of the expenditure in my district of that sum of money by Mr. 
Shaw. I made a thorough campaign in my district, covering every county in 
the district, and was well advised as to local conditions everywhere. The only 
evidence I had that Mr. Shaw had spent any money, or anyone for him, was 
that .just before the election some campaign lithographs made their appearance 
in some of the larger towns of the district announcing Mr. Shaw’s candidacy. 
I myself had covered the district with lithographs and know what it costs, 
and I sent out a thousand lithographs, I think, at an expense of $70. I do 
not think Mr. Shaw’s lithographs cost this much, or anything like it. The only 
other evidence I saw of the expenditure of money in my district by Mi-. Shaw 
was two circular letters which he sent through the mails, addressed particu¬ 
larly to farmers. I received both the letters myself, addressed to me, asking 
me to vote for Mr. Shaw, and each community and myself and neighbors, who 
were farmers, received sim.lar letters; others who were not, did not receive 


8 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


similar letters. Therefore, I concluded that Mr. Shaw was using one of the 
farmers’ directories of the twentieth congressional district. I know of no 
farmers’ directory except the Prairie Farmer Directory, and as his letters went 
to Democratic and Republican farmers I presume the list did not contain more 
than 10,000 names at the outside, and the circulars could not have cost him over 
$400 or $500. I saw no other evidence of other expenditures by Mr. Shaw, ex¬ 
cept that once I heard he came through Carrollton, where 1 lived, in an auto¬ 
mobile, going through the district, and, of course, there was some expense con¬ 
nected with that. He also sent out, I think, in one of liis letters, a short cir¬ 
cular on the subject of Argentine corn and the necessity for putting a tariff on 
Argentine corn. I do not know whether this circular was one prepared by the 
Republican committee or whether he prepared it. If he prepared it, that cost 
some money. He had no workers at the polls, so far as I was able to learn 
from my friends, in any part of my district, and there were no watchers as to 
count of ballots. A contest is always fairly conducted in a district like that. 
These are the only evidences I have of the expenditure by Mr. Shaw of any 
money in the campaign, and the evidence I have after a rather very careful 
investigation and my conclusion is that he could not have expended anything 
like the sum of $2,000, including the items of expenditure for paid publicity 
in the newspapers of the district. I did not notice a wide publicity, but T 
noticed in several newspapers, and I take them all, a letter from Mi-. Shaw, 
some of them, one or two at least, marked advertisement. 

Q. Does not that cost money?—A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know how many of the newspapers in the twentieth district car¬ 
ried publicity matter for which he paid?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You are entirely unqualified to estimate expenses on that account?—A. 
Yes. The newspapers in the district do not charge exorbitant rates. 

Q. Did you ever see one instance of publicity obtained as advertising 
matter?—A. I think I saw two or three. 

Q. Otherwise you saw no evidence of any expend ture of money in that dis¬ 
trict by Mr. Shaw?—A. No. 

Q. Of course, you saw no evidence of any corrupt use of money—at that elec 
tion at that time?—A. There was none. In my own home town he had working 
for him a man, Yates Fishback, who was rlie only man I could see who was 
doing anything for Mr. Shaw, and the only thing that he did was to make 
two bets on the election as to the number of votes he would carry my home 
town by, and he lost both of those bets. The question in my m ild is as to 
whether that was a proper expenditure under the laws of Illinois. 

Q. You state that the money was furnished by Mr. Shaw. You are well 
pleased with the bet?—A. No, sir; I am not complaining. 

Q. Now, Mr. Rainey, whatever irregularities or omiss'ons you charge against 
Mr. Shaw, you do not mean them to have affected the validity of the election?— 
A. No, sir. I have just stated the reasons in the notice of contest. 

Q. You state that by his omissions he has forfeited h s right to this seat?— 
A. \ r es, sir. 

Q. And your attitude is that if ^e has been negligent in complying with cer¬ 
tain provisions of the law, you w 11 be just tied in causing the people of that 
district to be deprived of representation?—A. That is a matter for argument. 

Q. That is your attitude?—A. No; not at all. My attitude is that a district 
ought to be represented by a man who understands the law and who will 
comply with the law in making his campaign. He has failed to comply with it, 
and it should be determined by the Committee on Elections what the result 
should be—whether there shall be another election or as to whether or not the 
votes cast for him are void on account of liis failure to comply. That is for 
the consideration of the House. 

Q. Your position is that he is ineligible?—A. That is a matter of law. My 
attitude is that to answer your question involves an argument as to the issue. 
Under the Constitution and the laws a man must be 21 years old; he must be 
a resident of the State. 

Q. There is no question of that in this Tistance.—A. Under the law, I 
undertake to say that if Mr. Shaw did not come up with these two require¬ 
ments, his election would be void. Under the law. also, he must be elected either 
by ballots or by the use of voting machines; unless he is elected in one or the 
other of these two ways, the votes cast for him would be void. And so of 
e\ ei y other law which has to do w.tli the time, place, and manner of electing 
Members of Congress—and as to the campaign publicity law of 1911 _if u e 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


9 


lias not complied with it, the question is for the House to determine. That 
situation is the same as any other. 

Q. Now, INIi*. Rainey, assuming that you failed to find evidence through 
which Mr. Sliaw expended money in the district, what justification have you 
for asserting conversion to his own use?—A. They told me at Beardstown of 
collecting debts from Mr. Shaw at the t me he received these contributions 
from the national committee. 1 was advised that in Beardstown merchants 
commenced to collect debts from Mr. Shaw for household expenses and for 
rents and for printing hills which had been outstanding for a long time and 
which has not been paid. To some of them he had given checks which had 
been repudiated by the hanks, and I was told that that was a frequent occur¬ 
rence in Beardstown and vicinity prior to the time of the receipt of this money 
from the national committee; and I was also advised that after the election 
checks drawn on the hanks in which he kept his deposits were returned no 
funds” and that these checks had not yet been paid, and some of them had 
to do with his campaign expenses for Congress, notably $250 paid to his ste¬ 
nographer, who did campa gn work for him; and with these facts in nrnd and 
statements made to me by gentlemen whom I have confidence in, I reached the 
conclusion from that evidence that some of this money went to his personal use. 

Q. You feel that this hearsay information justifies you in making a direct 
and express charge that he misappropriated tli s money?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have no direct information on the subject at all?—A. Well, it is not 
exactly hearsay. No; that is not hearsay, because the checks went through 
the hanks. 

Q. Now, you state in the ninth specification that he converted to his own use 
other sums contributed from other sources. Just what other sources do you refer 
to?—A. I stated a while ago what the other sources were. 

Q. You know of nothing to justify the statement?—A. Except as I have 
stated. 

Q. In your tenth and eleventh specifications you admonish the contestee of 
the situation he is in and the penalties, punishments, etc., What is your object 
in inserting that? I do not think that has any place in the not ce.—A. If there 
was money which lie did not account for, under the laws of Illinois the result 
might have been a prosecution under the criminal laws of Illinois. 

Q. What occasion was there for you to admonish him for the criminal situa¬ 
tion he was in?—A. Well, I don’t know that it did any good at all to ad¬ 
monish him. He did not answer my notice and he did not tile his reports here 
at all. At that time there were no expense reports on file, when I served him 
with ties notice, so I presumed my admomshment would not do any harm. 

Q. You have introduced in evidence without objection a notice for the taking 
of these depositions in Washington, D. 0., to-day. Were you acquainted with 
the fact that your attorneys in Beardstown served notice on Mr. Shaw to come 
here and attend the taking of depositions, and also with notice of depositions 
in Beardstown, to be taken on the 25th of this month? That was not done with 
your approval?—A. I did not know of it. Under the decisions of the House of 
Representatives and the committee testimony can be taken in more than one 
place. 

Q. Do you approve of the act of your attorney in giving notice of taking testi¬ 
mony at two points, 1,000 miles from each other, at the same time?—A. I have 
this notice I sent myself. I did not know about serving the other notice. 

Mr. Mxjmford. I think that is all. 

The Witness. I will say, in further reply, that the time within which my 
testimony could be taken depended entirely, under the law, upon the date when 
I was served with his answer, and his answer was not served on me at all 
within the time. I waited for it, expecting to take evidence within 40 days 
after he served his answer. The answer has not been served—until a few 
minutes ago. I was in doubt as to when I should take this testimony. That 
is the reason for taking testimony just before the expiration of rhe 40 days 
which had elapsed from the last date he had to serve not ce. It may be that 
I am not required at all to complete this testimony within 40 days of the ex¬ 
piration of the time, but I am not sure as to that in the absence of any express 
finding by the House of Representatives, so I have agreed with my attorneys 
that we had better conclude taking all testimony within 40 days from the ex¬ 
piration of the 30 days. This is the reason for the hurry in taking this testi¬ 
mony. 


10 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Mr. McCarron. Is it not also a fact that in the notice of the hearing to he 
held to-day that it is dated February 14 and that you endeavored to give to the 
eontestee as much time as possible in which to come to Washington to he present 
at these hearings? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Henry T. Rainey. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of March, 19-1. 

[seal]. Charles E. Gebhardt, 

Notary Public, District of Columbia. 

My commission expires December 4, 1921. 

Whereupon the said WILLIAM TYLER PAGE, being present, was duly sworn 
by me as a witness in the above matter to testify to the truth and nothing but 
the truth, and he testified as follows: 

Examination by Mr. McCarron : 

Q. Will you please state your full name, address, and your official position?— 
A. William Tyler Page, Friendsh'p Heights, Md., Clerk of the House of 
Representatives. 

Q. Mr. Page, were you Clerk of the House of Representatives of the United 
States during the entire year of 1920?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I hand you a copy of the notice of contestant, Henry T. Rainey, of the 
election of Guy L. Shaw as a Member of the House of Representatives of the 
United States from the twentieth congressional d‘strict of Illinois, which was 
served by Mr. Rainey on Mr. Shaw, through one of his attorneys, W. H. Diete- 
rieh. This has already been introduced in evidence as one of the contestant's 
exli hits. You will notice in paragraph 1 of said notice the statement “ you 
did not tile with the Clerk of the House of Representatives the statement re¬ 
quired to be filed before the 1920 primary under the Federal campa’gn publicity 
act.” Please state if Mr. Guy L. Shaw, the Representative named for Congress 
for the twentieth congressional district of Illinois filed with you as Clerk of 
the House of Representatives any statement of his primary expenses not less 
than 10 nor more than 15 days before the day of holding the primary election in 
Illinois, which was, I believe, on September 15, 1920, which was required by the 
act of August 19, 1911, public law No. 32, as amended by the act of Congress of 
August 23, 1912. public law No. 298.—A. I can best answer that question, 
I believe, by stating that the contestant. Mr. Rainey, on a number of occasions 
subsequently to the election on November 2, 1920, visited this office and inquired 
regarding the filing of statements of receipts and expenditures as required 
by law to be filed in this office by Mr. Guy L. Shaw. He examined the large 
book in which we keep a record of such statements, in addition to inquiring 
whether any such statements had been filed. The space provided in that book 
for the twentieth congressional district of Illinois remained a blank during 
and subsequently to the campaign, which, upon his visit to the office, Mr. Rainey 
could see for himself was a blank. In addition to this book the statements 
themselves are tiled according to States and in numerical order of the districts. 
Upon examination of the place into which would he filed the statements from 
that congressional district there were none of Mr. Guy L. Shaw. And 1 did 
not receive, as Clerk of the House, any statements from Mr. Shaw during the 
campaign or until some time subsequently, when, not a great while ago, 
I forget just the exact date, but that is easily ascertained by consultation with 
the records, there was filed in this office by Mr. Shaw, in person, an affidavit 
setting forth statements of receipts and expenditures in that campa'gn, with 
the exception of any statement of such receipts and expenditures prior to the 
date on which the primary elect'on was held. Notwithstanding tin’s affidavit of 
which I speak was filed after the t me prescribed by law. I filed it in the 
receptacle where the statements would have been filed had they been presented 
to me in time. After I had received unofficial information to the effect that 
this contest had been instituted, Mr. Ramey visited this office and inquired of 
me verbally whether or not statements had been tiled by Mr. Guy L. Shaw of 
the kind I have just mentioned, under the law, at which time I told Mr. Rainey 
that such statements had not been filed. Then, under date of December 13, 
1920. Mr. Rainey addressed to me a letter asking me to advise him as to what 
dates “ you have filed my campaign-expense statements, mailed in accordance 
with the law both before and after the Illinois 1920 primary election. Also as 
to what dates you have filed my campaign-expense statements filed before and 



RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


11 


niter the general 1920 election as a candidate for Congress from the twentieth 
Illinois district. Also whether any other candidate for Congress of any other 
party in said twentieth Illinois district tiled any campaign-expense statements 
before or after the 1920 primary election, or tiled any campaign-expense state¬ 
ments either before or after the general 1920 election.” To which letter, under 
date of December 14, 1920, I replied that the records of this office show the 
tiling by you as a candidate for Representative in Congress from the twentieth 
district of Illinois of statements required to be filed under the Federal 
publicity acts, to wit, before primary, September 7. 1920; after primary, Sep¬ 
tember 27, 1920; before general election, October 25, 1920; after general elec¬ 
tion, December 2, 1920; and then my letter went on to state “ it does not appear 
that any person a candidate for Representative in the Sixty-seventh Congress 
from the twentieth congressional district of Illinois tiled any statements before 
or after the primary election or before or after the general election in accord¬ 
ance with Federal laws relating to campaign contributions.” But, as I stated 
a moment ago, some time this winter, if my recollection serves me right, De¬ 
cember 27, there was tiled in this office by Mr. Shaw an affidavit with respect 
to receipts and expenditures after the primary election and before and after 
the general election. 

Q. Then I understand, Mr. Page, that there is no record in your office that 
Mr. Guy R. Shaw filed a statement of his campaign expenses before the pri¬ 
mary held in Illinois on September 15, 1920, at least 10 days and not more than 
15 days before said primary?—-A. I have stated that. 

Q. And that he did not file at any time before or after said primary on the 
15th day of September, 1920. any campaign statement?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And that he did not file not less than 10 days nor more than 15 days 
before the date of the general election on November 2, 1920, a statement of his 
campaign expenses?—A. No, sir. 

Q. That he did not tile within 30 days after the general election held Novem¬ 
ber 2, 1920, a statement of his campaign expenses as required by law?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. I call your attention. Mr. Page, to paragraph five of the notice before 
you in which it is stated, “ You did not,, as required by law, account for $1,000 
donated to you by the Republican National Congressional Committee on the 
8th day of October, 1920, to be used by you in your campaign.” Will you 
please state if the treasurer of the Republican National Congressional Com¬ 
mittee tiled with you a statement not more than 15 days nor less than 10 days 
next before November 2. 1920, an itemized, detailed statement, and on each 
sixth day thereafter, until the date of the said general election on November 
2, 1920, of all moneys and things of value received by said committee and the 
disbursements made by said committee to any person or persons?—A. He did. 

Q. Will you also state if there is an item or items in said statement tiled by 
the treasurer of the Republican National Congressional Committee prior to 
said general election showing the payment by him to Mr. Guy L. Shaw, of 
Beardstown, Representative named for the twentieth congressional district of 
Illinois, of $1,000 on October 8, 1920, and also the payment of $1,000 to said 
Guy L. Shaw on October 23, 1920?—A. Those reports show to my certain 
knowledge that contributions, respectively, of $1,000 and $1,000 were made to 
Mr. Shaw, but as to the exact dates, and not having the reports before me, I 
can not say as to the dates. But those reports are here on tile in the office 
downstairs. 

Q. Mr. Page, I notice that you say that Mr. Guy L. Shaw tiled this state¬ 
ment of campaign expenses with you on or about December 27, 1920.—A. 
\ T es, sir. 

Q. I have here a copy of the answer served by contestee, Mr. Shaw, on the 
contestant, Henry T. Rainey, dated February 23, 1921, in which it is stated 
that, and taking this in quotation from paragraph five of the answer—“and he 
further avers that said sums so contributed were actually and lawfully used 
and expended in said campaigns, as will more fully appear from his affidavit 
and copies filed with the Clerk of the House on January 31, 1920—express 
reference being made thereto for the purposes hereafter.’ Do you know, Mr. 
Page, if there was tiled with you such statement on the date which I have 
just read to you?—A. As I said a while ago, I am not sure of the date, but 
that can be easily ascertained. I may be incorrect in stating December 27— 
perhaps I am. It may have been the date you just mentioned. I can readily 
verify one or the other according to the fact by sending downstairs and getting 
the particular document in question. Shall I do that? 


12 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Q. I would like that the date be verified and the correct date be put in at this 
time. 

Mr. Page. I identify the dates as October 8. 1920. and October 23, 1920. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Mumford: 

Q. Mr. Page, you refer to the fact that some time after the expiration of the 
time required by acts of Congress Mr. Shaw filed in your office an affidavit, 
together with what purported to be copies' of reports of receipts and expendi¬ 
tures. You state that two reports were filed, one for before and one for after 
the general election, and that only one report was filed concerning the primary 
receipts and expenses?—A. That is correct. 

Q. Let me ask whether you recall whether the primary reports filed con¬ 
sisted of two parts, and purport to report all expenditues both before and after 
the primary?—A. That is true. The usual form prescribed by this office was not 
used in rendering that statement. 

Q. You state these reports were not received at your office within the times 
limited by the acts of Congress?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Of course, you would have no knowledge as to whether they were made or 
not or posted with the post office for carrage to you?—A. 1 would have no 
knowledge of that, except it were brought to my attention that such statements 
were alleged to have been mailed by registered mail and because of their non¬ 
receipt here the receipt given by the person in my office, if they were received 
here, would be sought. 

Q. In other words, they would be traced?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, Mr. Page, I believe I am correct in saying that the affidavit filed by 
Mr. Shaw does not purport to have registered these reports, but simply to have 
deposited them in the mails without registration?—A. That is correct. 

Q. Is it unusual, Mr. Page, that reports should be made under this act which 
are not registered to your office?—A. I have not kept any accurate computation 
or record of the number of reports received by registered mail and the number 
of reports received in ordinary mail. But my obsevation leads me to believe 
that the greater number of reports received by me during the last campaign 
which passed over my desk—some 3.500 all told—the greater number were not 
registered. 

Q. The files of your office now contain these copies referred to as filed by Mr. 
Shaw with his affidavit?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mumford. That is all. 

Direct examination continued by Mr. McCarron : 

Q. Mr. Page, I call your attention, please, to Public Law No. 298, approved 
August 23, 1912, a copy of which I have here, and ask you if it is not stated in 
that law, which is an amendment of the act of 1911, that the campaign state¬ 
ments, in order to be filed, must be deposited in a regular post office and must be 
duly registered? 

Mr. Mumford. Contestee objects to the question, because the provision is 
entirely directory and is not mandatory, nor material at all to the issues in this 
case. 

Mr. McCarron. But it does, Mr. Mumford. specifically state that in order to 
constitute a filing under the law that these conditions "must be complied with 
as set forth in the act. 

Mr. Mumford. Well, the act shows what the provisions are. of course. 

A. I am constrained to answer that question in the negative, because 
upon a reading of the provision in question it states every statement herein 
required shall be verified by oath or affirmation and directed to the Clerk of 
the House, duly stamped and registered, within the time required herein, and 
shall be deemed a sufficient filing of any such statement—shall be deemed a 
sufficient filing of any such statement—under any of the provisions of this act. 
I have always taken that to mean, where the question should be raised, that 
the postmark upon such registered matter would determine whether it were 
filed in time—within the time prescribed by law. 

Q-.But is it not a fact that in the campaign statement forms it is pre¬ 
scribed in such forms that the depositing of this statement in a regular post 
office, directed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, duly stamped 
and registered, within the time above required, refers to the paragraph above 
that which states that the statement must be filed within 15 days and not 
less than 10 days, and that within the time above required, is a sufficient filing 
of the statement? 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


13 


Mr. Mumford. I object to that, because it is not tlie best evidence. The 
document itself will show. 

Mr. McCarron. That paragraph which is set forth in these statements states 
that the statement must be deposited in a regular post office, directed to the 
Clerk of the House of Representatives, duly stamped and registered, within 
the time above required, in order to constitute a tiling. 

Mr. Mumford. Contestee objects, because it is not the best evidence and is 
wholly immaterial. 

Mr. McCarron. The contestant will let that question stand. The law itself 
speaks in regard to that. 

Cross-examination continued by Mr. Mumford: 

Q. Can you state, Mr. Page, what is your practice in this office with refer¬ 
ence to the filing date which you place upon these reports of receipts and 
expenditures? That is to say, do you tile them as of the date they are received 
at your office or as of the date they are deposited with the United States 
mail?—A. I might answer that question by stating that we tile them both 
ways. If, for instance, a statement is received wholly within the time pre¬ 
scribed by law, we mark the date of its receipt on the paper. If it is received 
subsequently to the time prescribed by law. we examine the postmark, whether 
it be registered or not. to determine the date of its mailing, and then stamp 
upon the document the date of its actual receipt and tile the envelope with 
the statement. 

Q. The practice of your office. Mr. Page, and assuming that the date of 
filing is the date of depositing in the post—it is, as I understand, the practice of 
your office to accept that as the date of tiling?—A. Yes. It seems to be the 
spirit of the law, although I have no judicial functions under the law—they 
are purely ministerial—I can not help but be the receptacle under the law in 
the most reasonable and common-sense fashion that I can employ. 

Q. I believe there is no doubt that your assumption is according to the legal 
effect of depositing these things in the post?—A. I can not say what the legal 
effect would be, because, as I say, I have no legal functions under the law. I 
am merely the repository of these things, and I aim to treat all matters coming 
under my notice with equal fairness and consideration. 

Direct examination continued by Mr. McCarron : 

The Witness (after examining paper). It appears that the date, according 
to our stamp, is January 31, 1920. 

Q. Will you identify the paper, Mr. Page, for the record?—A. Yes, sir. It 
is an affidavit of Guy L. Shaw, subscribed to on the 31st day of January, 1921, 
before T. J. Enright, a notary public in the District of Columbia, whose com¬ 
mission expires October 22, 1925. That is one paper. 

Q. Will you please state just what the gist of that affidavit is?—A. That Guy 
L. Shaw was a candidate for nomination as the Republican nominee for Repre¬ 
sentative in Congress from the twentieth district of Illinois at the primary 
election on the loth day of September, 1920, and that he was chosen as such 
nominee. 

Q. May I ask if the affidavit which Mr. Page has, in order to shorten the 
question, purports to be an affidavit setting forth the campaign expenditures 
of Guy L. Shaw as filed by him on January 31, 1921?—-A. My answer is, yes, 
sir; but I notice that I acknowledged the receipt to Mr. Shaw rather suc¬ 
cinctly : “ This is to acknowledge receipt to-day, January 31, 1921. from your 
hands, of your affidavit and the exhibits mentioned therein, concerning the re¬ 
ceipts and expenditures as Representative, twentieth congressional district of 
Illinois, which will be duly filed in this office as required by the Federal cam¬ 
paign contribution laws.” The exhibits referred to consist of what appears to 
be a copy of primary expenses prior to September 5, 1920, showing a total 
expenditure of $546.34, and of primary expenses prior to September 30, 1920, 
and after September 5, 1920, showing a total of $36.25. Also three letters pur¬ 
porting to be copies of letters addressed to me under dates of September 22, 
1920 October 24, 1920, and December 2. 1920, in each of which letters it is 
stated that affiant is sending herewith itemized list of money expended in the 
1990 primary campaign to and including October 24, 1920, and from October 24, 
1920, to December 2, 1920. That appears to be all. 

Mr. Mumford examines affidavit and exhibits. 

Mr. McCarron. That is all, Mr. Page. 


14 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Cross-examination by Mr. Mumford: 

Q. Mr. Page, if I understand you correctly, you state that on the 31st day of 
January, 1921, this contestee filed in your office an affidavit setting forth the 
dates on which he had made and filed in the post office at Beardstown three 
separate reports of receipts and expenditures connected with his primary and 
general election campaigns in the twentieth district?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And with that affidavit were filed exact copies of three reports, one 
covering the ante and post primary expenses and one covering the principal 
election receipts and expenditures, and they were filed with the affidavit?— 
A. Yes, sir. They were all filed on January 31, 1921. 

Mr. Mumford. That is all. 

Wm. Tyler Page. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of March, 1921. 

[seal.] Charles E. Gebhardt, 

Notary Public, District of Columbia. 

My commission expires December 4, 1921. 

Mr. McCarron. I would like to recall Mr. Rainey. 

Examination by Mr. McCarron : 

Q. Mr. Rainey, you have heard the testimony of Mr. Page, and I will ask 
you if you have had any notice of the affidavit and purported copies of the 
campaign statements filed with the affidavit of Mr. Shaw, dated January 31, 
1921?—A. No. My last conversation with Mr. Page on the subject was on the 
15th of this month, in which I told him we were going to take his testimony, 
and asked his permission to take the testimony in his office. He told me none 
of these statements had been filed and tlie;> were not filed at that time. The 
only notice I have ever had that the statements had been filed are the state¬ 
ments now made by Mr. Page, in which he testified they were filed on January 
31, 1921—about two weeks after issuing this notice. No answer was ever 
served on me, unless the one tendered this morning was an answer to my notice 
of contest. 

Q. It is your idea that the answer filed to your notice of contest was not 
properly filed within the time required by the statute?—A. It has not been filed 
at all; neither has it been served on me, except that just prior to the beginning 
of this testimony Mr. Mumford handed me a paper, with the statement, “ We 
tender you now this answer to your notice of contest.” 

Cross-examination by Mr. Mumford : 

Q. Is it your idea, Mr. Rainey, that either the law or the practice requires 
that the answer should be served on you?—A. Yes, sir; I think so. 

Q. Haven’t you had any notice, direct or indirect, that this affidavit of Jan¬ 
uary 31, 1921, had been filed by Mr. Shaw until to-day?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You have not examined the files of the Clerk of the House since the 15th 
of January on that subject?—A. No. I did not make any inquiry then. My 
conversation with Mr. Page with reference to using his room was about the 
15th of February, and evidently I was in error a moment ago as to that being 
the time when he told me there was nothing from Mr. Shaw on file. The con- 
versation must have been prior to that time. But I had a conversation with 
Mr. Page some time in January on the subject prior to the filing. 

Q. Mr. Rainey, the last conversation, which you refer to. with the Clerk of 
the House occurred about the 15th of February, 1921, is not the conversation, 
then, in which Mr. Page said that nothing had been filed V >v the contestee?— 
A. No. 

Q. You made no inquiry?—A. I made no inquiry and neither was I advised 
I simply discussed the question of taking testimony in this room. When Mr 
Page told me nothing had been filed, that was the middle of January and before 
the 31st of January, when the affidavit was filed. 

Henry T. Rainey. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of March, 1921. 

[seal.] Charles E. Gebhardt, 

Notary Public , District of Columbia. 

My commission expires December 4, 1921. 



RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


15 


Whereupon Mr. Mumford recalled Mr. Page. 

Examination by Mr. Mumford : 

Q. Mi 1 . Page, in fairness to yourself and Mr. Rainey, I wish you would make 
whatever statement you have to make concerning the conversation with Mr. 
Rainey on the 15th of February, and any notice to Mr. Rainey as to the tiling 
of this affidavit and exhibits on the 31st of January.—A. The conversation 
with Mr. Rainey on the 15th of February related wholly to the taking of testi¬ 
mony in my office, at which time I said that I should be glad to have it taken 
there, including my own testimony. No reference whatever was made to 
whether or not any statement of the contestee had been tiled since a former 
conversation, some time in January, that I had with Mr. Rainey. And during 
the conversation of February I did not deem it my duty to apprise Mr. Rainey 
of the fact that Mr. Shaw had hied in the Clerk’s office a statement of receipts 
and expenditures on January 31. In fact, at the time of our conversation 1 
did not think of that matter at all. I should like to state also that the cam¬ 
paign contribution laws do not require the Clerk to notify anybody, either 
verbally or in writing, of the tiling of any statements thereunder, and that 
such statements are required by the law to remain on the hies in this office for 
15 months after the general election, during which time they may be inspected 
by whomsoever desires to see them. 

Q. And, Mr. Clerk, the affidavits and exhibits in this case have in fact been 
filed in your office and subject to public inspection at all times since they were 
filed, on the 31st of January?—A. Yes, sir. 

Wm. Tyler Page. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of March, 1921. 

[seal.] Charles E. Gebhardt, 

Notary Public, District of Columbia. 

My commission expires December 4, 1921. 

Whereupon, Mr. T. C. MEEKER, being present, was duly sworn by me as a 
witness in the above matter to testify to the truth and nothing but the truth, 
and he testihed as follows: 

Examination by Mr. McCarron : 

Q. Please state your full name, your address, and your occupation?—A. T. C. 
Meeker, 1419 North Carolina Avenue NE., chief clerk of the National Repub¬ 
lican Congressional Committee. 

Q. What are your duties as chief clerk of the Republican National Con¬ 
gressional Committee?—A. I am assistant to the secretary and look after all 
the detail work of the office. 

Q. What does that consist of?—A. I have charge of the sending out of 
speeches and documents, take care of the tiles and card indexes, and have full 
charge of all the girls doing clerical work; look after the letters and state¬ 
ments we get out,- meet people who come in, and so on. 

Q. As chief clerk of the Republican National Congressional Committee, is it 
one of your duties, Mr. Meeker, to inform the respective candidates for Repre¬ 
sentative in Congress that they shall tile campaign statements before and after 
the election?—A. Since Dr. Fess has been chairman that duty lias been wholly 
mine. After the nom nations are made in the primaries we send out a blank 
form, and after the general election we send out two blanks, one not less than 
10 nor more than 15 days before the election and one 30 days after the election. 

Q. Were you chief clerk of the Republican National Congressional Committee 
during the'months of August, September. October, November, and December, 
1920?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you before the general election which took place November 2, 1920, 
send any campaign statement forms to the Republican nominees for Representa¬ 
tive in Congress in the various congressional districts of the country?—A. I 
endeavored to send them to every one. 

q. Have you, in accordance with the subpoena duces tecum served upon you, 
brought with you a certain letter dated October 11, 1920, addressed by the Re¬ 
publican National Congressional Committee to all Republican nominees for 
Representative in Congress to be voted on at the general election held Novem¬ 
ber 2. 1920. and copies of the forms for making reports of all expenses of said 
nominees for Representative which accompanied the said letter?—A. Yes, sir. 


16 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Q. Will you kindly produce that letter and those forms?—A. There is the 
letter and the forms. 

Q. Will you please read that letter?—A. October 11, 1920. Dear Mr. - . 

I am mailing to you, under another cover, two blanks for your use in reporting 
your campaign expenses to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, \\ ash- 
ington, I). C. You will find a copy of the law printed on the back of each 
blank, and it is important that you closely observe all provisions of the law. 
Please note that one statement should be filed before the November election, and 
the other after the election. With best wishes for your success, permit me to 
remain, with kindest regards, sincerely, yours,-, chairman. 

Q. Please state, Mr. Meeker, if that is an exact copy of a letter that was sent 
to all Republican nominees for Representative in Congress in the United States 
prior to the general election of November 2, 1920; and in addition to that also 
if the forms for filing campaign statements which you have in your hand accom¬ 
panied the said letter of October 11, 1920?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McCaeron. I desire at this point to offer as “ Contestant's Exhibit F ” the 
said copy of the letter of October 11, 1920. together with the forms as presented 
by Mr. Meeker. 

Mr. Mumford. That is objected to by the contestee as wholly immaterial. 

Mr. McCaeron. Please state just how this letter and forms were mailed to 
each nominee. 

A. The way we do there is as soon as an official list of nominees comes out, 
which Mr. Page gets out, I take that directory, pick out all Republican nominees 
of each State, and put one of each of the blanks into a large envelope; then the 
letters are run off and put into another envelope and addressed from this list 
of Mr. Page’s, and each are attached together and checked off by a duplicate 
check and then mailed. 

Q. Did you mail a letter similar to the copy which you have, dated October 11, 
1920, together with the forms for the filing of campaign statements before and 
after the general election to Mr. Guy L. Shaw, Republican nominee for Repre¬ 
sentative in Congress from the twentieth district of Illinois, at Beardstown, 
Ill.?—A. I can not say positively that I mailed one to Mr. Shaw. To the best of 
my recollection I think I mailed one to every Republican nominee. I am quite 
sure, but I am not positive. I endeavored to mail one to every Republican 
nominee. 

Q. There would be no reason why you should not mail the letter and forms 
to Mr. Shaw?—A. No. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Mumford : 

Q. You haven’t any independent recollection of mailing the letter and forms 
to this particular candidate?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You simply say that it was the practice and custom to do this thing and 
believe that it was done?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mumford. That is all. 

Mr. McCaeron. I desire to state that the contestant has finished with his 
testimony for to-day under the notice which was served upon the contestee 
dated February 14, 1921. 

T. C. Meeker. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of March, 1921. 

[seal.] Charles E. Gebhardt, 

Notary Public, District of Columbia. 

My commission expires December 4, 1921. 


I, Charles E. Gebhardt. a notary public in and for the District of Columbia, 
do hereby certify that pursuant to a certain notice dated February 14, 1921 the 
original of which is hereto attached (marked “Exhibit E"), on the 23d day of 
February, 1921, at the office of William Tyler Page, Clerk of the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives of the United States, in the Capitol Building, in the city of Wash¬ 
ington, D. C., at 10 o’clock a. m., I proceeded with the taking of depositions on 
behalf of Henry T. Rainey, contestant in the matter of the contested election of 
a Representative in Congress for the twentieth congressional district of the 
State of Illinois, and that I then and there took the depositions of the said 
Henry T. Rainey, contestant; William Tyler Page, Clerk of the House of Renre- 
sentatives; and T. C. Meeker. ~ 1 

And 1 do further certify that Henry T. Rainey, William Tyler Pa^e and 
T. C. Meeker, the witnesses before named, personally known to me and known 





RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


17 


by me to be Henry T. Rainey, William Tyler Rage, and T. C. Meeker, being 
present, were by me duly sworn to depose tlie truth in answer to such questions 
as may be propounded to them by counsel, and that they gave the foregoing tes¬ 
timony as exhibited on pages 1 to 31, inclusive, of the manuscript hereto 
attached; that the foregoing testimony was by me personally taken down steno 
graphically at the time and place above mentioned and by me personally reduced 
to writing; and that the said testimony was read by the respective witnesses 
after being so reduced to writing, in my presence, and was subscribed and sworn 
to in my presence on the dates certified to by me opposite their respective 
signatures. 

And I do certify further that the papers and documents hereto attached and 
marked for identification “ Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F,” respectively, are the 
identical papers which were introduced in evidence during the taking of the said 
testimony. 

Witness my hand and seal at the city of Washington, D. C., this 7th day of 
March, 1921. ‘ 

[seal.] Charles E. Gebhardt, 

Notary Public, District of Columbia. 

My commission expires December 4, 1921. 


Exhibit A. 


Hon. Guy L. Shaw, 

Beard stolen, 111. 


December 16, 1920. 


Dear Sir: I inclose two copies of notice of my intention to contest your elec¬ 
tion and ask that you acknowledge service on one of them and return it to me in 
the inclosed envelope. This may save some cost and may also expedite the 
matter. 

Very respectfully, 

Henry T. Rainey. 


Exhibit B. 

[Post Office Department. Official business. Registered article, No. 221631. Insured parcel.] 

Postmark of delivering office and date of delivery, Beardstown, December 20, 
1920, 12.30 p. m. 

H. T. Rainey, House of Representatives, United States, Washington, D. C. 


return receipt. 

Received from the postmaster the registered or insured article, the original 
number of which appears on the face of this card. 

Guy L. Shaw. 

Date of delivery, December 20, 1920. 

(Exhibit C.—Notice of contest, omitted in printing.) 


Exhibit D. . 

State or Illinois, 

Office of the Secretary of State, 

Springfield, January 26, 1921. 

Hon. Henry T. Rainey, 

House of Representatives, Washington, 1). C. 

Dear Sir: Replying to your favor of the 24th instant, beg to adxise that the 
State canvassing board completed the canvass of the votes cast at the geneial 
election on December 1. 1920, and the governor's proclamation was issued as 
of the same date. 

Very truly, yours, 


*> 


40991—21 


Louis L. Emmerson, 

Secretary of State. 





18 


RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


Exhibit E. 

State of Illinois, 

County of Cass, ss: 

W. H. Dieterich, being duly sworn, on oatli deposes and says that he was 
unable, upon diligent search, to And the said Guy L. Sliaw, and that lie served 
a notice, of which the attached is a true and perfect copy, by delivering the 
same to Mrs. Bessie D. Shaw, the wife of Guy L. Shaw, at the residence of 
the said Guy L. Shaw, at No. 213 West Third Street, in the city of Beardstown, 
Cass County, Ill., on the 16th day of February, A. D. 1921, at the hour of 2 
o’clock p. nr. of said day. 

W. H. Dieterich. 


Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of February, A. I). 1921. 
[seal.] E. Miller Dunn, 

Notary Public. 


My commission expires on 17th day of June, 1923. 


Washington, 1). C.. February /'/, 1921. 

Guy L. Shaw, 

Beardstown. III. 

♦Sir: Please take notice that on the 23d day of February, 1921, at the hour of 
10 a. m.. at the office of the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, 
at the Capitol Building, Washington, D. C., the deposition of Hon. William 
Tyler Page, Clerk of the United States House of Represenrafives. Washington, 
D. C.; T. E. Meeker, 701 Albee Building, Washington, D. C.; Hon. John Hol¬ 
lingsworth. Chef C’erk of the United States House or Representatives. Wash¬ 
ington, D. C.; Hon. Simeon D. Fess, United States House of Representatives, 
Washington, 1>. C.; Hon. Henry T. Rainey, United States House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, Washington, I). C., in this cause will lie taken before Charles E. 
Gebliardt, Esq., Wilkins Building, Washington, I). C., a notary public for the 
District of Columbia, under the provisions of section 107 of the act of January 
10, 1873, and section 2 of the act of March 2. 1875, Revised Statutes. Taking 
of testimony will continue from day to day until completed. Please govern 
yourself accordingly. 

W. H. Dieterich, 

John F. McCarron, 

Attorneys for Henry T. Rainey , Contestant. 


Exhibit F. 

National Republican Congressional Committee, 

Washington, 1). C., October 11. 1920. 

Dear Mr. -: I am mailing to you, under another cover, two blanks 

for your use in reporting your campaign expenses to the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives, Washington, D. C. You will find a copy of the law printed 
on the back of each blank, and it is important that you closely observe all pro¬ 
visions of the law. 

Please note that one statement should be filed before the November election 
and the other after the election. 

With best wishes •for your success, permit me to remain, with kindest 
regards. 

Sincerely, yours, 


Chairman. 

(Exhibits F2 and F3, publicity statements for filing before general election 
and after general election, omitted in printing.) 

(Note. —Testimony taken at Beardstown, Ill., February 25, 1921, and testimony 
taken at Springfield, Ill., February 25, 1921. was rece.ved by the Clerk of the 
House and by him opened in the presence of attorney for contestant and in the 
presence of contestee. Disagreement arising as to the printing of this testi¬ 
mony, respectively, the Clerk exercising the authority conferred by law to deter¬ 
mine the question, decided to omit said testimony from the printed record. 






RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


19 


Attorney for contestant entered objection to the action of the Clerk. The 
original copy of the testimony so excluded was replaced in the original con¬ 
tainers, and is transmitted to the Committee on Elections, together with the 
pr.nted testimony, pursuant to law. 

The ground upon which the Clerk excluded this testimony from the printed 
record on objection of contestee was that under section 108, Revised Statutes, 
sufficient time was not allowed contestee or his attorney to attend at the times 
and places stated in the notices, nor to prepare for the taking of this testi¬ 
mony, and that notice for taking of the testimony at Springfield, Ill., was not 
served upon him. Contestee and his attorney were present in the city of Wash¬ 
ington, D. C., in the office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, on 
February 23, 1921, at which time and place testimony in behalf of contestant was 
adduced. It seemed to the Clerk that in view of the contestee’s objection to the 
pr.nting of the testimony in question for the reasons stated should be sustained, 
and that whether or not such testimony should be considered as a part of the 
record would be properly considered and decided by the Committee on Elections.) 

DEPOSITIONS TAKEN ON BEHALF OF CONTESTEE. 


The depositions of the witnesses, Guy L. Shaw, Roy L. Phelps, G. W. Morton, 
E. T. Hunter, J. E. Haywood, Dick Spicker, sworn and examined at the direc¬ 
tors' room in the Beardstown State Bank, at the city of Beardstown, in Cass 
County, Ill., on Saturday, April 2, A. D. 1921, pursuant to the notice attached 
as contestee’s Exhibit 1, to be used and read on behalf of the contestee, in the 
election contest of Henry T. Rainey, contestant, v. Guy L. Shaw, contestee, in 
contest of the election of a Representative of and from the twentieth congres¬ 
sional district of the State of Illinois, at the general election held on Novem¬ 
ber 2, A. I). 1920. The taking and certifying of the attached depositions was 
continued from day to day from and after April 2, 1921, to the day of certifi¬ 
cate hereto attached. 

The said witnesses were severally sworn by the undersigned notary public 
to state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so far as they 
should be severally interrogated, and each of said witnesses severally signed 
and swore to his evidence hereto attached. 

Appearances: Hon. Guy L. Shaw, contestee; William Mumford, his attorney; 
Hon. Henry T. Rainey, contestant ; W. H. Dietericli. his attorney. 

Before D. M. Maney, Esq., notary public. 


GUY L. SHAW, the contestee herein, having been called in his own behalf, 
having been duly sworn, was examined in chief by Mr. Mumford, and testified 


as follows: 

Q. What is your name?—A. Guy L. Shaw. 

Q. Are you the contestee, or respondent, in this proceeding?—A. I am. 

Q. Do you hold and have you held the certificate of the secretary of state 
certifying to your nomination as Republican candidate for Congress in the 
twentieth district of Illinois?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. On what day did the election occur?—A. November 2, 1920. 

q. About what was the majority which the returns showed you received?— 
A. Between 3,900 and 4,000. 

Q. How many counties comprise this congressional district?—A. Ten. 

Q. And in a general way, where are these counties located in the State of 
Illinois?—A. The west central part of Illinois, lying along the Illinois River. 


I do 


Quite a number of the counties are adjacent to the river. 

Q. Do you happen to know what the population of this district is?—A. 
not recall now. 

Q. What has heretofore been the normal political complexion of all of the 
counties in the twentieth congressional district t A. Stiongl\ Democratic. 

q Has it been true that in former years every county was Democratic?— 
A. Yos sir. 

Q. What was the political result of the election in the district on the 2d of 
November, 1920, on Representative in Congress?—A. A Republican was elected. 

O. And how many counties were carried by yourself and how many by Mr. 
Rainey?—A. I think 8 of the 10 counties by myself and 2 by Mr. Rainey. 

Q. One of these counties carried by Mr. Rainey was his own county oi 

Greene and the other was Brown?—A. \es, sir. 

Q. Do you remember the date of the primaries in this district?—A. I think 

September 15, 1920. 


20 


RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


Q. From the time the result of that primary was made known and the cer¬ 
tificate issued of your nomination, did you or did you not actively engage in the 
election campaign?—A. 1 did. 

Q. In a general way, what did you do? Did you go out in the district 
yourself?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Into every county?—A. Every county except one, and I was in that 
county but really did not make much of a campaign. 

Q. What county was that?—A. Scott. 

Q. In addition to your own activities in that respect, did you have any other 
persons who went out in the district in your interests?—A. I did. 

Q. Did you give notice of the taking of these depositions here to-day, or direct 
your attorney to give that notice?—A. I did. 

Mr. Mumford (to reporter). Mark this paper “ Contestee’s Exhibit No. 1.” 

(Paper marked “ Contestee’s Exhibit No. 1" for identification.) 

Mr. Mumford. You may look at Exhibit No. 1 and state if that is the notice 
you directed to be given in this matter. 

A. It is. 

Q. That is the copy of notice served on Judge Dieterieh, the attorney for the 
contestant?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you desire to have that notice attached to your deposition as an 
exhibit?—A. Yes, sir. 

(Which said paper, marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 1,” is attached to this 
transcript of proceedings.) 

Q. Did you direct that copies of that notice be sent to the contestant, Mr. 
Rainey?—A. I did. 

Q. By registered mail, from Pittsfield?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mumford (to reporter). Mark this “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 2.” 

(Paper marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 2” for identification.) 

Q. You may look at Exhibit No. 2 and state if that purports to be a receipt 
from Mr. Rainey for the registered package referred to.—A. It does. 

Q. Do you desire to have that attached to your deposition?—A. Yes, sir. 

(Which said paper, marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 2,” is attached to this 
transcript of proceedings.) 

Mr. Mumford (to reporter). Mark this paper “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 3.’’ 

(Paper marked “ Contestee's Exhibit No. 3,” for identification.) 

Air. Mumford. You may state if that purports to be and is a copy of the 
notice of the taking of these depositions, served on one of the contestant’s 
attorneys in Washington. 

A. It is. 

Q. Do you desire that attached to the deposition?—A. Yes, sir. 

(Which said paper, marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 3,” is attached to this 
transcript of proceedings.) 

Mr. Mumford (to reporter). Mark this paper “Contestee's Exhibit No. 4.” 

(Paper marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 4,’’ for identification.) 

Q. Kindly state if that is the subpoena you directed to be issued with proofs 
of service on witnesses to be examined to-day.—A. It is. 

Q. You wish that to be attached?—A. Yes,' sir. 

(Which said paper, marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 4,” is attached to this 
transcript of proceedings.) 

Air. Mumford. Where have you recently been, Air. Shaw? That is to say, you 
have been away from home recently?—A. I have. 

Q. For what purpose did you come back at this time?—A. For the purpose of 
taking depositions in this case. 

Q. \\ hen did you leave Beardstown?—A. On the evening of the 30th, the night 
of the 30tli. 

Q. When had you gone to Washington on the occasion of your late residence 
there?—A. I started on Sunday afternoon, the Sunday afternoon prior to the 

Q. Twenty-third of what?—A. February, 1921. 

Q. For what reason or purpose did you'go to Washington at that time 7 _A 

Because of having been served with a notice of the taking of depositions in 
Washington on that day. 

Q. You were notified by Air. Rainey of—or his attorney, were you that 
depositions would be taken by his attorney in Washington on the 23d of Feb¬ 
ruary?—A. Y T es, sir. 

Q. And you went pursuant to that notice?—A. I did. 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


21 


Mr. Mumford (to reporter). Mark this paper “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 5.” 

(Paper marked “ Cont.estee’s Exhibit No. 5,” for identification.) 

Mr. Mumford. You may look at Exhibit 5 and state if that is the notice of 
the taking of depositions in Washington, signed by Judge Dieterich. to which 
you have just referred. 

A. It is. 

Q. We desire to have that go into the record. 

(Which said paper, marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 5,” is attached to this 
transcript of proceedings.) 

Mr. Mumford. Now, Mr. Shaw, when did you say you left Beardstown to go 
to Washington, pursuant to that notice just introduced in evidence? 

A. On Sunday before the day—on Sunday before the 23d. 

Q. What, if anything, occurred in Beardstown just before you left to go to 
Washington to attend to the taking of depositions?—A. On Saturday after¬ 
noon, late in the afternoon before the Sunday on which I left. I was served 
with a notice to take depositions in Beardstown on the same case on—I think 
the date was the 25th. 

Mr. Mumford (to reporter). Mark this paper “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 6.’’ 

(Paper marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 6,” for identification.) 

Mr. Mumford. You may look at Exhibit 0 and state if that is the notice 
Judge Dieterich served on you in that behalf. 

A. It is. 

Q. Do you desire to offer it?—A. Yes. sir. 

(Which said paper, marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. fi.” is attached to this 
transcript of proceedings. 

Mr. Mumford. Had you been advised, Mr. Shaw, that Mr. Rainey’s deposi¬ 
tion was to be taken in Washington on the 23d, on the occasion referred to? 

A. Yes; I had been notified; yes, sir. 

Q. Did you regard it as important, that you should he present in Washington 
when Mr. Rainey’s deposition was taken?—A. I did. 

Q. You regarded it as necessary, and were so advised?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Notwithstanding that notice to take depositions here on the 25tli, you 
went, to Washington?—A. I did. 

Q. Did you do that out of any discourtesy or defiance of the proceedings to 
take depositions here?—A. No, sir. 

Mr. Mumford (to reporter). Mark this paper “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 7.” 

(Paper marked “Contestee’s Exhibit. No. 7” for identification.) 

Mr. Mumford. When you received the notice marked as Exhibit 6 did you 
send any communication to Judge Dieterich with reference to taking of deposi¬ 
tions? 

A. I did. I went straight home and studied over the matter and decided to 
write this letter. 

Q. And is the exhibit which you hold in your hand a copy of the letter which 
you wrote to him?—A. It is. 

Q. Do you desire to have that offered?—A. I do. 

(Which said paper, marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 7,” is attached to this 
transcript of proceedings.) 

Mr. Mumford. Do you know personally whether these depositions were taken 
on the 25th? 

A. I do not. 

Q. Who is your attorney in the conduct of this contest?—A. William Mum¬ 
ford, of Pittsfield, Ill. 

Q. Was he or was he not with you in Washington on the taking of depositions 
on the 23d?—A. He was. 

Q. Was he or could he have been in Beardstown on the 25th?—A. He could 
not have been. 

Q. Have you at any time filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
reports of receipts and expenditures of campaign contributions under the act of 
Congress requiring those reports to he made?—A. I have. 

Mr Mumford (to reporter). Mark this paper “Contestee’s Exhibit No. S.” 

(Paper marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 8” for identification.) 

Mr. Mumford. Who is the Clerk of the House of Representatives? 

A. William Tyler Page. 

Q. You may look at Exhibit S and state if that is the receipt you hold from 
the Clerk of the House for the filing of these reports required by law—A. It is. 

Q You desire to offer that in evidence?—A. Y^es, sir. 

(Which said paper, marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 8.” is attached to this 
transcript of proceedings.) 


22 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Mr. Dieterich. We want the notary to note an objection to Contestee’s Ex¬ 
hibit No. 8, for the reason that it does not show that the reports were filed at 
the time they are required to be filed by the act of Congress. 

Mr. Mumford. You had received notice from the contestant, had you not, 
that he would contest your election? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. With 11 specifications in the notice?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you at any time serve upon the contestant an answer to the notice 
of contest of election?—A. I did. 

Mr. Mumford (to reporter). Mark these papers “Contestee’s Exhibits Nos. 
9a. 9b, and 9c.” 

(Papers marked “Contestee’s Exhibits Nos. 9a, 9b, and 9c.”) 

Mr. Mumford. You may look at Exhibits 9a, 9b. and 9c, which I now hand 
you. and state whether they are copies of the reports which you filed with 
the Clerk of the House of Representatives and which are referred to in Mr. 
Tyler Page’s receipt already offered. 

Air. Dieterich. We want to make an objection to this, for the same reason 
stated as an objection to Exhibit No. 8, that it doesn't show that they were 
filed at the time they are required to be filed by the act of Congress. 

Air. AIumford (to witness). Answer the question. 

A. They are copies; yes, sir. 

Q. Do you desire to offer in evidence in this regard these exhibits?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

(Which said papers, marked “Contestee’s Exhibits Nos. 9a, 9b, and 9c,” are 
attached to this transcript of proceedings.) 

Air. Dieterich. We want to note objections to the offering of contestee’s 
Exhibits Nos. 9a, 9b, and 9c, for the reason that they do not show that they 
were sworn to as required by the act of Congress, and that they purport to 
state that they were mailed—Exhibit 9b on October 24, 1920, and 9c on De¬ 
cember 2, 1920. There is no evidence and no statement of any receiving officer 
that they were mailed on that day. The further objection that they are not 
in compliance with the provisions of the act of Congress requiring statements 
of receipts and expenditures of election of candidates for Congress and others. 

Air. AIumford. Were, in fact, these Exhibits 9a, 9b, and 9c sworn to when 
they were filed by you with the Clerk of the House? 

The Witness. They were. 

Q. These are merely copies which omit the verification from the copies?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Otherwise they are true copies, are they?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you at any time serve notice on Mr. Rainey of your answer to his 
notice of contest?—A. Yes, sir. 

Air. AIumford (to reporter). Alark this paper “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 10.” 

(Paper marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 10” for identification.) 

Air. AIumford. Is Exhibit 10. which you hold in your hand, a true copy of 
the notice served on Air. Rainey? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You saw it, did you, in the office of the Clerk of the House of Representa¬ 
tives, in Washington?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You desire to have it attached to your deposition?—A. Yes, sir. 

(Which said paper, marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 10,” is attached to 
this transcript of proceedings.) 

Air. Dieterich. AVe object to the admission of contestee’s Exhibit No. 10 for 
the reason that it was not filed or served on contestant within the time re¬ 
quired by the act of Congress for the answer in proceedings of this kind. It 
was not served until the time was set for taking of depositions. 

Air. AIumford. Go back a moment, Air. Shaw, to the depositions that were 
probably taken in Beardstown here on the 25tli of February. Do you object to 
the receipt and consideration of those depositions by the committee? 

A. Yes, sir; I do. 

Q. Do you propose to move, at the proper time and in the proper way, to sup¬ 
press the depositions for the reasons indicated?—A. I do. 

Air. AIumford. I would like to make a statement here. I want to sav that 
Judge Jfieterich here has advised me that under Air. Rainey's dire tion he will 
furnish me a copy of the evidence taken on the occasion referred to here and will 
recall the witnesses and consent that I cross-examine these witnesses. I think 
that will straighten that out, Judge. 

Air. Dieterich. Yes, sir; that is all right. 


RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


23 


Mr. Mumford. Now, Mr. Shaw, you are not a wealthy man, as I take it? 

A. No, sir. 

(>. You have had oceas'on to feel the need of money in your life, as many 
other men have? 

Mr. Dieterich. Just a moment, please. I want to enter objection to those 
questions and answers. 

Mr. M t'M ford. Notwithstanding this condition, you have been able to regard 
yourself as an honest man, have you? 

A. Yes, sir. 

L>. Did you receive any assistance or contributions to your campaign fund other 
than those sworn—shown in the reports which you have offered in evidence 
here?—A. I did not. 

Q. They amounted, as I believe, to $2,000 received in two equal contributions 
from the national congressional committee?—A. It did. 

(j. As this campaign came on, state briefly and approximately how much time 
you personally gave to your campaign out over the district. You needn’t be exact 
about it. I mean the primary and the election campaigns.—A. I spent the 
greater part of my t me in the campaign after the primaries and considerable 
rime before. I should say probably two-thirds of my time. 

<j. How did you travel?—A. I traveled by automobile and on the trains. 

Q. Did you have any paid publicity in the newspapers of the district?—A. I 
did. 

Q. Did you or did you not employ persons to exert themselves for you and in 
behalf of your candidacy?—A. I did. 

Q. Did you or did you not receive much ass'stance which was not paid for at 
all and was not charged for?—A. I did. 

Q. I notice, Mr. Shaw, that in your primary report, to which you have 
referred, you take credit prior to September 5, 1920. for the following items: 
Newspaper announcements, $30; Schnepp A Barnes, printing, $22.50; Buckeye 
Sales Co., mimeograph letters. $150: Chandlerville Times, publicity, $21.60; 
James Livingstone, stenographic work, $11; Buckeye Sales Go., mimeograph 
letters, $280.99; W. J. White, auto hire. $25; and the Dick Spicker Printing Co., 
printing. $12.05. making a total of $546.34. Are those items correct?—A. 
They are. 

(j. Was that money actually spent by you in your primary campaign prior 
to that date?—A. It was. 

Q. Was it spent for proper and legitimate campaign expenses—a'l of it?—A. 


It was. 

Q. Was any of it used for any corrupting or illegal purposes?—A. No. sir. 
q. i notice your primary report, after September 5, shows only three items: 
Spicker Printing Co., printing, $3.50; G. D. Hund, publicity, $15; J. B. Living¬ 
stone, stenographic work, $17.25. Are those items correct? A. They are. 

q. Were they actually expended by you for necessary and legnmate work 
in vour campaign covering that period?—A. They were. 

6. In your Exhibit 9b. which purports to be the copy of election campaign 
expenditures, aggregating $1,101.85, you itemize here 45 items of expenditure, 
the highest being $180, I believe, and the smallest perhaps being $3, and aggre¬ 
gating $1,101.85, as stated. Are those items correct?—A. They are. 

q were they actually expended by you for the necessary purposes connected 
with your campaign?—A. They were. 

Q. Was any of that money used for corrupt or improper purposes/—A. 


(X In vour exhih t marked 9c you take credit for 29 items of expenditures 
in your election campaign, aggregating $1,921.80. Have you examined carefully 
all the items in both of these election reports?—A. I have. 

O. Are they correct?—A. They are. 

q were they actually expended in the full amounts named for the puipose 

a \fte'r the election, Mr. Shaw, did somebody start or institute the (pollu¬ 
tion of reports in this congressional district calculated to affect the honesty 
of vour handling of and disposition of campaign contributions? A. i hey did. 

A dpi you or did yon not thereupon submit all of your receipts and all of 
your expenditures to competent persons in Beardstown here for an audit of 
your campaign receipts and expenditures?—A. I did. 

‘ O Did those competent persons examine personally your leceipts and ex¬ 
penditures and make a report as to what they show?—A. They did. 


24 


RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


Mr. Dietehich. We want to enter an objection to this line of questioning as 
not proper or material in the issue of this case. 

Mr. Mumford (to witness). Who is E. T. Hunter? 

A. He is a resident of Beardstown, Ill., and cashier of the Beardstown State 
Bank. 

Q. Who is Walter B. Myer?—A. He is a business man in the town and 
proprietor of the Myer Hotel, and a Republican committeeman. Also, Mr. 
Hunter is the secretary of the Republican county central committee. 

Q. Who is Roy L. Phelps?—A. He is a resident of Beardstown, a county 
central committeeman, and has a post in the State administration with the 
fish and game department as an inspector. 

Q. Who is J. L. Long?—A. A citizen of Beardstown and a grocery man. 

Q. Who is E. H. Schumann?—A. He resides in Beardstown, and is the pro¬ 
prietor of a hardware concern, in partnership with a gentleman by the name 
of Gillford. 

Q. Who is W. (i. Mooney?—A. He also resides in Beardstown. and is 
engaged in the clothing and shoe business. 

Q. Who is F. William Wessel?—A. Citizen of Beardstown engaged n the 
retail business, handling farm implements, repairs, etc. 

Q. E. M. Humphrey?—A. A citizen of Beardstown. and I think connected 
now with the Glenn Ice & Fuel Co. 

Q. Who is E. .T. Howard?—A. A citizen of Beardstown, at that time an 
employee of It. C. Shell of the Shell Motor Co., as bookkeeper. 

Q. He is now your secretary in Washington?—A. He is. 

Mr. Mumford (to reporter). Mark this paper “ Contestee’s Exh bit No. 11.” 

(Paper marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 11 ” for identification.) 

Mr. Mumford. You may look at Exhibit No. 11 and state if that is a correct 
copy of the report of these auditors of your receipts and expenditures. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You desire that offered?—A. Yes, sir. 

(Which said paper, marked “Contestee’s Exhibit No. 11,” is attached to this 
trauser 1 pt of proceedings.) 

Mr. Dieterich. I obje t to that as not being competent evidence, notli ng to 
show what the accounts were when first submitted to this committee, nothing 
to show whether they were the correct accounts, receipts, and expenditures, and 
the instrument purports to be a copy. It *s not the best evidence if the same 
could under any circumstances be competent. 

Mr. Mumford. Mr. Shaw, about how much of your own money, in excess of 
the $2,000 received from the national Republican congressional committee, did 
you actually spend in your campaign for Congressman? 

A. Approximately $900; between $000 and $1,000. 

Q. In addition to this?—A. Yes, sir; that doesn't cover the primaries. 

Q. That is election expense?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In the notice of contest which was served on you, a copy of which will be 
attached to this deposition, I find there are 11 specifications. Nos. 1. 2, 3. and 4 
charge that you d d not file with the Clerk of the House of Representatives the 
statements required before and after the primaries and before and after the 
election. Are those the reports to which you have referred as having filed in 
the office of the Clerk of the House?—A. They are. 

Q. So you say you are not guilty of either of these four charges?—A. No. sir 

Q. The fifth specification, Mr. Shaw, charges that you did not account for 
$1,000 received by you from the Republican national congressional committee 
on the 8tli of October, 1920, to be used in your campaign, and the sixth speci¬ 
fication makes a like charge against you on account of $1,000 received by vou 
on the 23d of October, 1920, from the same source. Did you in these reports 
account for the $2,000, and is that the same sum which you have charged your¬ 
self with in your reports?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. In his seventh specification he charges you did not file any statement ac¬ 
counting for campaign contributions received by you from other sources_other 

sources than the national congressional committee. Is that specification correct 

or is it not? Did you receive any contributions from other sources •> _ \ i 

did not. 

Q. You know what other sources Mr. Rainey refers to in this specification?_ 

A. I do not, except as gathered from his statement in taking the testimony 'in 
Washington, in which he referred to the State central committee of Illinois 

Q. Did you receive any assistance or contribution from the State Republican 
central committee in Illinois?—A. I did not. 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


25 


Q. Or from any other committee except the congressional committee?—A. I 
did not. 

Q. In the eighth specification it is charged that you converted to your own use 
a considerable portion of the moneys received from the congressional committee. 
Are you or are you not subject to that charge?—A. I am not. 

Q. Does the report tiled with the Clerk of the House, to which you have 
referred, account for these very items?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The ninth specification states you converted to your own use and did not 
use in your campaign other sums of money contributed from other sources. Did 
you receive any other money from other sources?—A. No, sir. 

Q. His tenth and eleventh specifications, Mr. Shaw, constitute what one might 
consider a trivial explanation. He advises that if you were indicted you will 
incur heavy penalties, etc. Have you, in the answer which you served on Mr. 
Rainey, resented that admonition, and do you deny your guilt?—A. I do. 

Q. Is there any other matter or thing, Mr. Shaw, of which I have not inquired 
now which you wish to state in defense of yourself against this contestant? 
Do you think of anything further?—A. I do not recall anything at present. 

Mr. Mtjmford. I think that is all, Judge. 

Cross-exam nation by Mr. Dieter ich : 

Q. You say the date of the primary election was September 15, 1920. Is that 
correct ?—A. That is the way I remember it. 

Q. You received no contributions for expenses of your primary election?—A. 
No, sir. 

Q. The $2,000 that you state you received from the Republican congressional 
committee were not sent to you for the purpose of defraying any pr mary expense, 
were they?—A. No. sir. 

Q. They were sent to you for the purpose of assisting you in taking care of 
your expenses at and before the election?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say you filed statements with the Clerk of the House of Representa¬ 
tives at Washington?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you file those statements?—A. The dates are shown in this re¬ 
ceipt which we have had before us awhile ago. 

Q. This receipt of January 31, 1921?—A. That was the date that the reports 
referred to in the receipt were filed. 

Q. Y"es; that is the day you filed the statements; is that correct?—A. The 
■statements referred to in the receipt. 

Q. I do not understand the receipt, Mr. Shaw. It says: “This is to acknowl¬ 
edge receipt to-day from your hands of your affidavits and expenses mentioned 
therein, concerning rece'pts and expenditures incident to your nomination and 
election as Representative to the Sixty-seventh Congress from the twentieth con¬ 
gressional district of the State of Illinois, which will be duly filed in this office 
as required by the Federal campaign contribution law.” Where are the affidavits 
referred to in this receipt?—A. On file in Washington. 

Q. You haven't any copies of that with you?—A. I think not. 

Q. What are the expenses mentioned in this receipt incident—expenses men¬ 
tioned therein concerning receipts and expenditures?—A. It has reference to 
those copies you hold in your hand. 

Q. It has reference to contestee’s Exhibits 9a. 9b, and 9c?—A. I presume so. 

Q. I ami saying that to make it clear; 9a, 9b, and 9c purport to be state¬ 
ments—9a of primary expenses prior to September 5; 9b purports to be a state¬ 
ment of campaign expenses?—A. Yes; it refers to those papers you have in 
your hand there? 

Q. And that is the time you filed them?—A. \ T es, sir. 

Q. You didn’t file them before that time?—A. The original reports were mailed 
prior to that time. 

Q. Were mailed prior to that time? You remember when the original reports 
were mailed?—A. I don’t remember offhand. 

Q. Will you advise us when they were?—A. Yes, sir. One report was mailed 
on October 24. 1920. 

Q. What report was that, do you remember?—A. That was the preelection. 
Wait just a moment and I will give those in order. I think I can do that. 
Now, then, the primary report was mailed on September 22. 1920; the preelection 
report on October 24, 1920; the last report on December 2, 1920. 

Q. You say they were mailed, but how? Who mailed the original of which 
contestee’s Exhibit 9a purports to be a copy—that is the primary report as 
you term it?—A. I did. 


26 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Q. Wlio prepared that report?—A. I did. 

Q. Did you type it?—A. 1 presume I did. I didn’t have a stenographer at 
that time. 

Q. And who was that addressed to?—A. The Clerk of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives. 

Q. Are you testifying to this from memory or have you data in your pos¬ 
session that refreshes your mind on it?—A. I have carbon copies of letters. 

Q. Will you produce the carbon copies of letters which accompanied con- 
testee’s Exhibit 9a?—A. That is the primary? 

Q. That is the primary report.—A. That was September 22. [Hands copy of 
letter to Mr. Dieterich.] 

Q. You say you typed this yourself; is that your recollection?—A. That is 
my recollection. 

Q. But you do remember of depositing it in the post office?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have made a search or made inquiry from the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives at Washington, have you?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know whether he had received that?—A. Up to the last time I 
saw him he had not received it. 

Q. When was that?—A. At about the time of the taking of the testimony in 
Washington. 

Q. In 1921, during the month of February, some considerable time after?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. In reference to the expenditures contained in that report, do you know 
how they were made? I mean by cash or check?—A. I think the most of them 
were made by check. 

Q. Where did you carry your account at that time?—A. In a Springfield 
bank. 

Q. What bank in Springfield—A. I think it is called the Ridgely National,, 
the Farmers’ Bank. 

Q. The Ridgely Farmers’ State Bank?—A. I think it is. 

Q. You only carried an account at one bank in Springfield?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Do you carry an account at any other bank?—A. At the Beardstown 
State Bank. 

Q. A checking account?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. And the account you carried at the Ridgely Farmers’ State Bank was 
also a checking account?—A. \ T es, sir. 

Q. l T ou never carried any checking account in any other bank, did you, at 
that time?—A. I don’t think I did. 

Q. And that is true all down to December 20; is that correct?—A. 1 think 
that is correct. 

Q. So the only checking account you carried from the—during September 
and up to December were the accounts you kept in the Ridgely Farmers’ State' 
Bank at Springfield, Ill., and the Beardstown State Bank at Beardstown?—A.. 
That is as I recall now. 

Q. This statement—is that an exact copy of the original, your Exhibit 9a?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is the form it is in?—A. I think it is; yes, sir. 

Q. Was that on the printed form, do you know? Or did you just write it 
on the typewriter as indicated on the copy?—A. I didn’t have the printed 
form; I presume it was on stationery, the original. 

Q. Y T ou were advised it was necessary to make that report?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you at that time know it was necessary to also make a report of 
your expenditures for campaign purposes before the election?—A. YVs. sir. 

Q. And after the primary?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were fully advised as to that?—A. I presume I was. 

Q. You knew that had to be made and who that had to be sent to?—A. Yes. 

Q. Did you know the name of the Clerk of the House at that time?—A. I am 
not sure that I did, but I think I did. 

Q. At that time you addressed the letter to William Tyler Page: is that cor¬ 
rect?—A. Yes. 

(>. Do you remember when you first obtained the knowledge that it was 
necessary to do that, Mr. Shaw?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When?—A. I can't give you the date. 

Q. How did you acquire that knowledge; by your own research, by reading 
the statutes yourself, or by being advised by some one?—A. I got it through 
talking with some friends. 

Q. Do you remember who they were?—A. Y'es, sir. 



RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


27 


Q. Mho were they?—A. Congressman Wheeler was one of them. 

Q. Of Springfield?—A. Yes. 

Q. You were advised at that time it was necessary to make a report of your 
expenditures for the campaign. Did you know when that report had to be 
made; did lie advise you?—A. No; he didn’t advise me. 

Q. You didn t know whether it should be made before or after the primarv?— 
A. I looked the matter up myself. 

O. And determined that it should be made. Now, calling vour attention to 
contestee's Exhibit 9b, when did you say that was made?—Is‘that the preelec¬ 
tion ? 

Q. The preelection?—A. It was mailed on October 24. 1920. 

O- I)o you testify from memory or do you testify from some memorandum you 
have which refreshes you?—A. Both. 

Q. Will you produce any letter or copy of letter sent with the report?—A. 
A. Yes. sir. [Hands copy of letter to Mr. Dieterich.] 

Q. Y\ ho typed this, do you know?—A. No, sir; I can’t say. 

Q. At that time did you have a stenographer in your employ?—A. I did. 

Q. Mho was he? A. Well, I wouldn’t swear that I had a stenographer on 
that date. I had some stenographers about that time. Mr. Howard was doing 
most of my work, excepting the mailing of campaign material. 

Q. Was Mr. Howard at that time employed by you as a stenographer?—A 
No, sir. 

Q. Was there any other stenographer employed by you at that time? T mean 
on October 24. 1920.—A. I don't recall. There is a lady here in town who I 
called on frequently. 

Q. IVho is that?—A. Miss Pearl Nelson. 

Q. Do you remember whether that letter that you say accompanied the'state¬ 
ment of your preelection campaign expenses, referred to as Contestee’s Ex¬ 
hibit 9b, was written by yourself, typed by yourself, or by your stenographer?— 
A. Which date is tliat? 

Q. October 24, 1920.—A. I think that letter was typed by myself on the road 
from .Terseyville. 

Q. You carried a typewriter with you?—A. A geat deal of the time; yes, sir. 

Q. Y’ou think that was typed on your road home from Jerseyville?—A. That 
is my memory. 

Q. Were you in .Terseyville on that day?—A. T think T was about that time. 

Q. How long had you been there?—A. Perhaps that night and day. 

Q. Did you use the typewriter on the train coming home?—A. T think I 
did. I think T started to work in .Terseyville and finished it on the way 
home. 

Q. Was there anyone present with you?—A. Not with me: I was traveling 
alone. 

Q. Do you remember anyone you met on that particular trip?—A. No. sir. 

Q. Your best recollection is that the letter written on October 24, addressed 
to William Tyler Page. Clerk of the House of Representatives, Washington, 
D. C., that accompanied contestee’s Exhibit 9b. was written on your road home 
from .Terseyville?—A. It might have been written in .Terseyville or on the road 
home or when I got home. 

Q. What time did you leave .Terseyville that day?—A. In the morning some 
time. 

Q. Do you remember what train it was, on what road?—A. On the C., B. & Q. 
I drove from Jerseyville over to a station east of there, Eldred, I believe. I am 
not sure now. 

Q. Who drove you?—A. Some one from Jerseyville. 

Q. Y T ou don’t remember the name? Was it an automobile or a horse and 
carriage delivery?—A. It was a horse and buggy. 

Q. When did you prepare contestee’s Exhibit 9b?—A. Right about that time; 
at the same time the letter was prepared. 

Q. They were both prepared at the same time?—A. About the same time. 

Q. Was contestee’s Exhibit 9b prepared by you, then, on the road from .Ter¬ 
seyville?—A. I can’t say as to that. I know I was working in Jerseyville and 
I didn’t say whether it was in Jerseyville or on the road home. 

(). Where were you working in Jerseyville on contestee’s Exhibit No. 9b?— 
A. At the hotel. 

Q. Anyone with you there?—A. No. sir. 

Q. What do you say as to who typed contestee’s Exhibit 9b?—A. You mean 
the original? 


28 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Q. Yes; who did the typing of the original? This is a carbon copy?—A. No; 
it isn't a carbon copy; it is a copy. 

Q. What was it taken from?—A. Memoranda. 

Q. What memoranda?—A. Memoranda that I kept of expenses. 

Q. It wasn’t written from the—did you preserve a carbon copy of the origi¬ 
nal?—A. No, sir. 

Q. So contestee’s Exhibit 9b was another copy made up from memoranda; 
do I understand you correctly?—A. I kept a copy of the figures, but not an 
exact copy of the report. I kept the figures, and the figures and items included 
on Exhibit 9b was made up from those figures. It is substantially the same 
thing.. 

Q. Those were the same figures, is that correct, that you made up the origi¬ 
nal from?—A. Substantially so. 

Q. You say substantially so. Is this an accurate copy of the original you 
sent?—A. I would say it is. 

Q. There might be a difference of a few cents, a small amount?—A. An 
error of some kind, but substantially the same thing. 

Q. Rut do you remember whether it was made up from the notes—what 
did you make up the original from, Mr. Shaw?—A. Notes and memoranda. 

Q. Contained in what—use your bank book?—A. No. sir. 

Q. Use your check book?—A. No; I don’t think I used the check book. 

Q. Well, these expenditures, were they made by check or paid by cash?—A. 
Some by cash and a good many of them by check. 

Q. But you didn’t refer to your check book in the matter of making up the 
original?—A. No; to memoranda kept. 

Q. You kept a memoranda, then, of your expenditures at that time?—A. Y”es, 
sir. 

Q. Got that memoranda with you?—A. No; I haven’t. 

Q. Do you know whether you could produce it or not?—A. I do not. 

Q. You had that memoranda as late as January 31, did you not?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And you made up this report from that memoranda?—A. Yes, sir—no; 
the original report was made up from the memoranda. 

Q. Then you didn’t make this report up from the memoranda which you 
made the original report from?—A. It was taken from the figures included in 
the first report. 

Q. Where did you get the figures?—A. From memoranda. 

Q. Then I understand you correctly, when you made up the contestee's Ex¬ 
hibit 9b from the same memoranda you made up the original which you say 
you mailed on the 24th day of October?—A. I don’t believe I understand the 
question. 

Mr. Dieterich (to reporter). Read the question again. 

(Question read.) 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You did?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Then you did preserve the memoranda that you made up the original 
from?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And had that as late as January 31?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where is it now?—A. I can’t say. 

Q. Could you produce it?—A. I can’t produce it now; it may be in Wash¬ 
ington. 

Q. Will you make a search for it and see whether you can produce it at 
this session of the taking of this evidence?—A. Yes; I will. 

Q. You say you didn’t use your check book in guiding you in making this 
statement?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What do you say as to whether or not these expenditures, as shown in 
this memoranda, as shown in contestee’s Exhibit No. 9b, were made by check 
or cash?—A. I don’t think I got that, Judge. 

Q. What do you say as to whether the expenditures purporting to be made 
in contestee’s Exhibit No. 9b were made by check or cash?—A. Both cash and 
check. 

Q. To what amount or proportion? Did you do any considerable cash pav¬ 
ing?—A. Well, that would depend upon judgment; I would sav I did quite a 
little. The most of it was by check. 

Q. What amount of the items of $1,101.85, as shown expended by contestee’s 
Exhibit No. 9b. were made in cash?—A. You say what proportion?' 

Q. Yes.—A. I can’t say. 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


29 


Q. Have you any judgment on it now?—A. No; I haven’t, without a de¬ 
tailed study of the items. I could work it out. I don’t know whether I have 
all the data here with me or not. But I would hardly know how to estimate it. 

I think I could tell by looking over the list and in a general way. 

Q. Have you your canceled checks?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you them with you?—A. I have. 

Q. Have you the canceled checks on the Springfield bank that you carried 
an account with?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Have you got them with you?—A. I think so. 

Q. Will you produce those checks and let us compare and see how many 
of these expenditures were made by check?—A. With the consent of my 
attorney I will. I think I have a number of them. I came away in a hurry 
and overlooked a few items, but I have substantially all of them. How do. 
you want them? 

Q. Are they in chronological order?—A. I think they are. 

Q. Can you answer me whether or not the item on October 2, 1920, to 
f-a-r-s—was that cash or check?—A. Fare? 

Q. Oh, fare?—A. Railroad fare. 

Q. Oh, yes; railroad fare. I note an item in contestee’s Exhibit 9b under 
date of October 9: Capitol Engraving Co., electrotype, $12.25. How was that 
paid?—A. What was the amount? 

Q. $12.25.—A. That was paid by check. 

Q. The same day, the Ashland Sentinel—what was that for? Was that a 
primary or election expense?—A. This Capitol engraving? 

Q. Yes.—A. I think it was for a plate. 

Q. Was that—when was that purchased, do you know?—A. I think about 
that time, perhaps on the 7th or Stli; it was a plate, I think, for a lithograph. 

Q. What I want to know was whether it was used in your primary campaign 
or in your campaign for election.—A. I think in the election. 

Q. i notice “Ashland Sentinel,” under same date. “ publicity, $20.80.” Was 
that by cash or check?—A. By check. 

Q. On what bank?—A. The Ridgely Farmers’ Bank. 

Q. You have that check, have you?—A. I have. 

Q. Dick Spicker Printing Co., $50. On the 10th. How was that made?—A. 
Isn’t that $60? 

Q. Yes ; $60; it is blurred a little.—A. By check. 

Q. On what bank?—A. The Ridgely Farmers’ State Bank. 

Q. Did you draw any money out of the bank from October 10 to 13, for cam¬ 
paign purposes?—A. 10th to isth—I did. 

Q. How much?—A. Well, I notice here $60. 

Q. Yes; October 13, G. W. Morton, campaign worker, $75. [Not legible.] 

Q. On what bank?—A. Ridgely Farmers’ State Bank. 

Q. Have you the check with you?—A. I have. 

q. Buckeye Sales Co., mimeograph letters, on October 13; how was that 
paid?—A. By check. 

Q. Davis Photo Service, for photo cards, $23.75; how was that paid?—A. 
Bv check. 

'q. On what bank?—A. Ridgely Farmers’ State Bank. 

Q. I notice several items on—did you draw any money or make any expendi¬ 
tures on October 15, in reference to your campaign?—A. I don’t see any checks 
here at present, but there are some for the 16tli. 

Q. For the 16th? What does it show on that date? What checks did you 

write?—A. One check for $50. 

Q. To whom?—A. Payable to cash. 

6. You mean that was for your own personal use?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I notice an item here under date of October 16, to Bessie May Bellman, 
campaign worker; how was that made? A. What amount? 

O. $30 and $5.—A. That was cash, both items. 

Q. Bv cash?—A. I think so; yes, sir. ...... 

Q. Did you obtain that cash by drawing a check for yourself out of the 

bank?—A. Yes, sir; undoubtedly. 

O How much cash did you draw out of the bank for campaign purposes on 
the" 16th of October?—A. Unless I am making an error, or overlooking some 
of these items, there was one for $50, which I think we have just mentioned, an 


item of $180 on October 16- 

O. What was that for?—A. That is—what was 


it spent for? 


Q. Yes.—A. For stamped envelopes. 




30 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Q. Was that drawn out in cash?—A. That is my remembrance. 

Q. On October 16 I see “Davis Photo Service, $71.95”: how was that paid, 
cash or check?—A. I think that was cash. 

Q. Who is the Davis Photo Service?—A. It is a concern in Chicago, doing 
business in Chicago. 

Q. You were not in Chicago on that day, were you?—A. No, sir. 

Q. What makes you think it was paid in cash, Mr. Shaw?—A. That is my 
remembrance of the transaction—that arrangements were made over the long¬ 
distance telephone for a quantity of photo cards. The agreement was that 
cash was to accompany the order to the amount of $23.75, or a certain percent¬ 
age. Then, at any rate, that was the amount paid. The photo cards came 
C. O. D. and were paid for, the balance due being $71.95. That is my remem¬ 
brance of the transaction. 

Q. Well, do your canceled checks show any expenditures on the 18th of Octo¬ 
ber?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What do they show?—A. They show—shall 1 read them to you? 

Q. Yes.—A. On October 18, a check payable to the Ashland Sentinel to the 
amount of $3; October 18, Louis Hynes, $10. 

Q. Who was Louis Hynes?—A. He was a taxicab driver. 

Q. Where?—A. In Springfield. At that time he lived in Petersburg. 

Q. All right; go ahead.—A. On October 18, the Ashland Sentinel again, 
$28.80; October 18. Waverly Journal, $20; October 18. Petersburg Observer, 
$22; October 18. Republican Gazette, $3; October 18—this is blurred out—I 
think it is the 18th, Tallula Record, $3; October 18, Free Press, $3; October 18, 
the Republican, $3. 

Q. Where is that; do you know what place?—A. I think that is the paper 
edited in Havana. October 18. Versailles Sentinel, $3; October 18. Chandler- 
ville Times, $3; October 18, a check made payable to Rev. M. .1. Foley, $18.75. 

Q. Who is that?—A. I don’t know the gentleman personally, but from cor¬ 
respondence I have he is the editor of a paper edited in Quincy which has quite 
a circulation in this district. October 18, Greenview Review, $3; October IS, 
Manito Express, $3; October 18, Petersburg Observer, $3; October 18, Banner- 
Times, $3. 

Q. Now-A. Here is a check that never was dated. 

Q. What is it?—A. To the Mason City Banner-Times, and the amount is $7. 
I think it was on the 18tli. October 18, Dr. T. .T. Scliweer—the amount is 
$72.80. Unless I have overlooked some, that is all for the 18th. 

Q. What does it show for the 20th?—A. On the 20th of October, 1920, Baylis 
Guide, $3; on October 20, Greenview Artus, $3; October 20. Meredosia 
Budget, $3. 

Q. Any expenditures on the 21st?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What?—A. October 21, check to myself, $30 cash; on October 21, to Dick 
Spicker Printing Co., $100. 

Q. On the 23d?—A. On the 23d, William Scullion, $25. 

Q. What was that for?—A. Taxicab auto hire. 

Q. Anything further on the 23d? What are those checks on? All on the 
Springfield Bank that you have given?—A. I think they are. I am pretty sure 
they are. 

Q. The check you are looking at now. is it on the Springfield Bank?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Now, on the 23d, what other checks, if any?—A. G. W. Morton, $19.75, 
on October 23. 

Q. October 24?—A. Another check to G. W. Morton, amounting to $25. 

Q. What was that for?—A. That was a campaign expense. 

Q. Now, you say this—did you have those checks with you when you pre¬ 
pared this statement?—A. I don’t know whether I had all of them or not; I 
doubt if I had. 

Q. What is your judgment on that? What is your recollection on that?— 
A. It is that I did not. 

Q. That you did not?—A. Yes. 

Q. Your recollection is that you kept an account of that unaided by any view 
of the checks given?—A. I think—I don’t think all the-checks were back from 
the bank at the time. 

Q. Got your bank book with you?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You don’t know when the checks—when your book was balanced up at 
the different times by the Ridgely Bank?—A. I do not. 

Q. Mr. Shaw, do you remember of any time that your bank book was bal¬ 
anced at the Ridgely Bank?—A. No; I wrote in to the bank a time or two, or 






RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


31 


communicated with it in some way, that I would like to have a statement 
showing the balance of my account. I remember one was sent, I think—my 
recollection is two or three different times. 

Q. Did you have a bank book? Did they issue you a pass book from the 
bank?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You don't know when those checks you have there were returned to you?— 
A. I do not. 

Q. What do you say as to whether they were returned in 1921 or 1920?— 
A. I can’t say. 

Q. Do you know whether your bank book, at the Ridgely Bank, was balanced 
in November?—A. No; I don’t remember. 

Q. To refresh your memory, Mr. Shaw, I will ask you if it isn’t a fact that 
on November 29 your bank book was balanced and your canceled checks re¬ 
turned?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. You don’t remember that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. If that was true, then you couldn’t have had the assistance of canceled 
checks in making this statement, could you? You didn’t have your canceled 
checks with you down to Jerseyville, did you?—A. I don’t think so. 

Q. And you were preparing this report there?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. It is safe to say, now, what is your best judgment as to whether you were 
assisted by canceled checks in preparing this original report.—A. My best .judg¬ 
ment was that I was partly assisted by canceled checks and partly by memo¬ 
randa. 

Q. Have you—but you haven’t any detin te recollection about that?—A. No, 
sir; I haven’t. 

Q. Pardon me for asking you again, but do you remember whether you had 
any canceled checks with you at the time you prepared this report?—A. I don’t 
remember. 

(). You don’t remember?—A. No, sir. 

Q. When you say partly by canceled checks and partly from other memo¬ 
randa, you are just hazarding—you will pardon me—a guess?—A. No; I say 
I presume. 

Q. But you didn’t state definitely as to that?—A. No, sir. 

Q. You wouldn’t state definitely one way or the other?—A. No. 

Q. When did you first begin the preparation of the original of what you say 
contestee’s Exhibit No. 9b is a copy?—A. I kept a daily account. 

Q. Have you got it with you?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Where is it?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. Well, the question I asked you, Mr. Shaw, was when you began the 
preparation of the original of which Exhibit 9b is a copy. When did you begin 
the preparation of it?—A. I can’t say offhand. 

Q. Had you been working on it for some time?—A. I had it in mind, and I 
kept a memoranda as to what was going on. 

Q. I am trying to find out when you started to prepare the original report 
that you say you. filed, or mailed, on the 24th day of October. When did you 
start the preparation of it?—A. Actually made out the report? 

(^. Yes.—A. I don’t know, but prior to that date. 

Q. Prior to that date?—A. Oh, yes. 

Q. You remember definitely working on it in Jerseyville?—A. I think I do; 
yes, sir. 

Q. And do you remember whether you had blanks or not?- Was the original 
made on a blank like this?—A. I don’t remember that, hut I think it was. 

Q. Well where did you obtain those blanks?—A. I obtained them from some 
source in Washington, if I remember correctly. 

Q. Well, I am asking—the report, then, the original that you prepared and 
mailed on the 24th day of October, was prepared on a blank like this. Is that 
correct?—A. That is my remembrance; yes, sir. 

Q. When did you finish the drafting of it?—A. I don’t know. 

Q. Do you remember whether you finished it in Beardstown or Jersey¬ 
ville?—A. I don’t remember that. 

Q. If you wrote the letter on the train from Jerseyville you had finished the 
report at that time, had you not?—A. The chances are that the figures were 
•complete and about ready to mail in. 

Q. To mail in?—A. Yes, sir. 

(j. That would naturally he the last thing you would do, to write the letter 
saying the report was inclosed; yes?—A. Ordinarily; yes. 


32 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Q. You don’t mean to say you would write the letter wlien you just had the 
data?—A. I mean to say this: I am not an expert stenographer and the 
tilling out of reports with a typewriter such as I carry, where there are lines 
and spaces to he tilled in, are difficult. I can easily see where it might not 
have been done on the train. 

Q. I am only asking for your best recollection; whether it was completed at 
the time you typed the letter or whether the report still had to be typed after 
that.—A. My recollection— I would naturally assume it was prepared before 
tiie letter was typed. 

Q. Did you make affidavit to it?—A. I think I did. 

Q. Before whom?—A. I do not recall. 

Q. Do you remember where you made the affidavit? | Answer not legible. 1 

Q. You remember whether it was at Jerseyville?—A. No; I think it was 
either in Jacksonville or Beardstown. 

Q. Either Jacksonville or Beardstown. Were you in Jacksonville on the 
24th?—A. I don’t recall; I made a good many trips to Jacksonville. 

Q. Do you remember whether you were there on the 24th?—A. I do not recall. 

Q. What is your best judgment?—A. I can’t say. I was on the go most of 
the time at various places in the district. 

Q. What do you say now, Mr. Shaw, whether in Jerseyville on the 24th day 
of October you made affidavit to the original of what you say contestee’s Exhibit 
9b is a true copy, before any officer there?—A. No; I do not recall. 

Q. l r ou don’t recall?—A. No. 

Q. Would you say you did or did not?—A. I don’t say. 

Q. You do definitely remember that you mailed it?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You remember depositing it in the post office?—A. l T es. 

Q. Where?—A. At Beardstown, Ill. 

Q. I mean in what part of the office. How did you deposit it there?—A. I 
presume in the- 

Q. Don’t you have a recollection of it?—A. I don’t know of any other place 
ould have been mailed. 

Q. I am asking, do you remember the act of depositing this mail?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did you deposit it?—A. In the post office. 

Q. What part? Where did you put it? What receptacle did you put it in?— 
A. I don’t know. It was the place on the outside where it says “ letters.” 

Q. Did you hand it to any of the employees in the post office or the post¬ 
master?—A. No. 

Q. Was it stamped?—A. YTs, sir. 

Q. You remember that?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it registered?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Why didn’t you register it?—A. I don’t know why I di'dn't. 

Q. Did you register any of these reports you sent?*—A. No. sir. 

Q. Did you read the reports before you sent them?—A. I presume I read* 
it over. 

Q. You read the blank, did you?—A. I think I read one. 

Q. Did you comply with the blank, did you?—A. I intended to. 

Q. You intended to, and you knew this report was an important requirement 
of the Federal laws, didn’t you?—A. YTs, sir. 

Q. Understood and appreciated that, didn’t you?—A. I think I did. 

Q. You understood it was a requirement under an act usually known as the 
corrupt-practice act? A. I don’t know that I knew the act it was under, but X 
knew the reports were required to be in. 

Q. Do you remember what the last day for filing this report was?—A. I 
don’t know now. 

Q. Do you recall now what length of time previous to the election you had 
in which to file this report?—A. No; I don’t recall offhand. 

Q. But you were preparing it down at Jerseyville?—A. Yes. 

Q. And it was important enough that you took the data with you and 
worked on it when you were away from Beardstown on vour campaign’— 
A. l T es. 

Q. You let it interfere with your regular campaign work to that extent 
A. I didn’t say it interfered. 

Q. But you considered it important enough that you worked at it and that 
you carried it with you and were anxious to finish it?—A. Y>s; I wanted to 
get it finished. 

Q. You had the blanks with you, did you not?—A. That is my remembrance 

Q. They were sent to you by the committee, were they not?*—A I presume 
they were. My recollection is that they came from Washington 



RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


33 


Q. Did you read the blank?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And complied with it?—A. I think I did. 

Q. Was this statement contained in the blank—you read tbs directions? 
A. I think I did. 

Q. Was this—I will ask you whether this direction was on the blank that you 
say you mailed in the post office: “ To be tiled with the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives, Washington, D. C., not less than 10 nor more than 15 days be¬ 
fore the date of general election. The depositing of this statement in a legal 
post office, directed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, duly stamped 
and registered, within the time above named is a sufficient tiling of this state¬ 
ment.” You knew that that statement was upon your blank?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You understood it had to be filed with the Clerk of the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives?—A. Yes. 

Q. And mailed it because the blank contained the directions on it., wasn’t that 
true?—A. I presume 1 was trying to follow the directions. 

Q. Why didn’t you register it?—A. Because I didn’t think that, reads it is 
necessary to register it. 

Q. That is your explanation, that you didn’t think it reads it is necessary. 
If it had read that, you would have registered it, wouldn't you?—A. I would 
have made some effort to register it. 

Q. Do you know whether you made an affidavit before any official in Beards 
town as to that?—A. I don’t recall: no. 1 have affidav ts made out every once in 
a while, and I wouldn’t say whether I did or did not. 

Q. But you are not able at this time to recall the officer before whom you 
made the affidavit to the original of what you say contestee’s Exhibit 9b is a 
true copy?—A. No, sir. 

( v ). Are you ready to say you made affidavit to it?—A. I think I am. 

Q. Where?—A. I don’t think I remember where. 

Q. Did you remember the act. of making an affidavit to that, or swear to 
that?—A. I think the last two reports were sworn to—the first two reports 
sent in. 

Q. You took this t.o the post office yourself, did you?—A. That is my remem¬ 
brance. 

Q. What time of day was it?—A. I don't know. I usually go to the office 
early in the morning and late at night. 

Q. If this was done on the 24th day of October, when was the time—early in 
the morning or late at night?—A. I can't say, but it might have been late at 
lnght—after the supper hour some time. I usually go to the office. 

Q. Is there a notary public in the building where your office was?—A. No. sir. 

Q. Where were you doing your work in Beardstown at that time?—A. My 
recollection is that I was doing it at my house. 

Q. Do you remember whether you had a stenographer in your employ at 
that time?—A. 1 think I did. 

Q. Who was it?—A. I think it was Esther Hanley. 

Q. Who is Esther Hanley?—A. A young lady living in Springfield. Miss 
Pearl Wagner also worked there, and Miss Pearl Nelson came in occasionally. 

Q. But you say your recollection is that you typed the original of that your¬ 
self?—A. I think I did. 

Q. That is your recollection of it?—A. Yes. 

Q. If you had a stenographer working at that time in the city of Beardstown 
and you didn’t type this at some place other than the city of Beardstown, you 
would have given it to the stenographer to type, would you not?—A. I have a 
typewriter and use it some and do considerable of my own work. 

Q. How many typewriters have you?—A. Two. 

Q. You say notwithstanding that you had a stenographer in your employ in 
Beardstown it might have been possible you would have typed it yourself on 
the 24th?—A. Y T es; I did a good deal of my work all the time. I do it now. 

Q. Since you have had a Ettle time to think over it, I would like to have your 
best judgment as to whether that original was sworn to.—A. My best judgment 
is that it was sworn to. 

Q. Before what officer?—A. I can not say; I was around a good deal at that 
time and was in various places in the district. I was in Springfield considerable. 

Q. Mr. Shaw, if you were working on the report in Jerseyville on the 24th, it 
could not have been sworn to before the report was completed, could it?—A. No; 
I presume not. 

46991—21-3 * 


34 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Q. And you left Jerseyville and came direct to Beardstown, did you not? 

A. I did on the trip referred to. 

Q. Yes; on the 24th.—A. I didn’t testify that it was the 24tli, but it was 
about that date. 

Q. What do you say as to whether you were in Jerseyville on the 24th?—A. 
I think the date I was in Jerseyville was one or two days prior to that, but I 
was working on it at that time. 

Q. But what do you say now about writing the letter on the train between 
Beardstown and Jerseyville?—A. I didn't say 1 wrote it on the train. I said 
it was probably prepared on the train or in Jerseyville or after I got home. 

Q. You said you typed it yourself?—A. I think probably I did. I can't swear 
whether I did or did not. 

Q. Calling your attention to contestee’s Exhibit 9c, is that a copy of an 
original?—A. I didn't say it is an exact copy, but like the former one it was 
made up from memoranda the same as the original was made up from. 

Q. Yes. And if asked about the different items and where you received the 
information and the data from which you prepared contestee’s Exhibit 9c, your 
answers would be the same as contestee’s Exhibit 9b?—A. I presume it would 
be substant hilly the same. 

Q. So we will not take the time to go over all that. Where is the original of 
that?—A. I presume it is on tile with the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
in Washington. 

Q. When did you file it there?—A. 1 refer you to the receipt. 

Q. On January 31, 1921?—A. I think that was the (late. 

Q. Well, do you—is that the first time you tiled a statement of your expendi¬ 
tures as shown by contestee’s Exhibit 9c with the Clerk of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives?—A. I want to be sure that I understand you, Judge. 

. Q. I mean the statement you tiled with the Clerk of the House of Representa¬ 
tives on January 31, 1921, is that the first statement covering your expenditures 
between those periods that you tiled with the Clerk?—A. That was the first re¬ 
port filed in person with the Clerk. 

Q. In person. Did you tile one in any other way than in person? Did you mail 
a statement covering the expenditures as shown by contestee’s Exhibit 9c at 
Beardstown?—A. Do you mean the last one after the election report? (Looking 
at Exhibit 9c.) Yes, sir; if I understand your question correctly. 

Q. When did you mail that?—A. The early part of December. 

Q. Do you remember the date?—A. 1 do not recall it offhand; no, sir. I 
imagine about the 1st or 2d of December. I have the carbon copy of the letter. 

Q. Have you a copy of the letter accompanying the report?—A. I have. 

Q. Will you produce it, please?—A. Under date of December 2, 1920. | Hands 

paper to John Dieterich.] 

Q. Do you remember who typed that letter?—A. I think I did. 

Q. Where were you when you typed it?—A. I think at home. 

Q. Did you have any stenographer working for you at that time?—A. I don't 
think I did. 

Q. Did you prepare the original of what—the report I mean, that accom¬ 
panies—was there any report accompanying the letter of December 2, 1920?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you prepare that report?—A. I can't say. At that time I had at least 
two people coming in and doing extra work for me. But I presume I did. 

Q. What data did you prepare it from?—A. Memoranda kept during the cain- 
paign. 

Q. Don't know whether you had any canceled checks to assist you in that?— 
A. No; I do not recall. 

Q. Were the items of expenses that you list in contestee’s Exhibit 9c, were 
they paid by check or cash?—A. In the preelection, it was paid both by check 
and cash. 

Q. Have you the canceled checks covering that period?—A. I think I have. 

Q. Will you produce them?—A. I will. What date is that? 

Q. The first date I notice is October 25. The last date is November IT.—A. 
Shall we run down the list like we did the other one? 

Q. Yes.—A. On October 25, the American Railroad Express, $136.56. 

Q. How was that paid?—A. By check. 

Q. What is the next?—A. October 25, Dick Spicker Printing Oo., $121. 

Q. What is the next?—A. October 25, W. E. Robinson, $290.50. 

Q. How is that made; check?—A. By check. 



RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


35 


Q. Go ahead.—A. October 26, W. B. Robinson, by check, $150. 

Q. How much?—A. $150. 

Q. I notice an item in this Exhibit 9c: Miss Bessie May Bellman.—A. That 
was cash. What is the item? 

Q. Campaign work, $25.—A. Sclmepp A Barnes. $175.50; on October 22, check 
to myself, $50; on ()ctober 27, check to myself, $25; October 27, cash $10; 
October 28, Charlie Starks, check $13. 

Q. I note on October 28 L. K. Zerrien, campaign worker. How was that 
paid?—A. By check, October 28. November 2, 1920. check to Fred Nieman, 
$10; that was November 2. On November 9, James B. Livingstone, check 
$124.75; November 9, 1920, Chandlerville Times, $3.05; November 9, 1920, Dick 
Spieker Printing Co.. $33.25; on November 9, 1920, Petersburg Observer, $5; 
November 9, Meredosia Budget, 60 cents. 

Q. You have it 80 cents in this report?—A. The check is 60 cents. An error 
in copying, probably November 9. 1920 [not legible]. The Republican, $5.60; 
November 9—I will have to let somebody else pronounce it. 

Q. What is that institution?—A. As far as I know it is a newspaper. I am 
inclined to think it is a religious institution, published at Alton. It is 
Schneiderhalm, or something like that. (Reporter: I don’t vouch for that 
word.) The first name is Boys, the middle initial P, and the amount of the 
check is $25. That was for newspaper publicity. On November 9, 1920, Ver¬ 
sailles Sentinel, $3; on November 9, 1920, Central Union Telephone Co., $30.71; 
on November 12, cash to myself, $175; on November 15, to A. C. Davis, $20; 
on November 17. Bessie May Bellman, $205; on November 17, cash $45. 

Q. I notice an item here to campaign worker, November 11, $200.—A. That 
was cash. 

Q. Those checks are all checks on the Ridgely Farmers State Bank; is that 
correct?—A. I think they are; I didn’t notice definitely and specifically. 

Q. Who was the campaign worker that you paid $200 to on November 11 ? 

Mr. Mumford. I want to object to the question, for the reason that, for 
political considerations, it doesn’t seem to me advisable that this witness should 
answer that question. If the committee insists on his disclosing the name of the 
person to whom he paid he will do so, but I feel he should not do that, for 
political and personal reasons. 

Mr. Dietericii. You say the statement you mailed on December 2. 1920. is an 
exact duplicate of this? 

The Witness. I will say substantially. 

Q. As far as amounts and times and persons contained in the expenditures 
are concerned, it is the same; is that correct?—A. Substantially the same. 

Q. What do you mean by using the word substantially?—A. That means ap¬ 
proximately, but, as further explanation, I should say I think it is the same. 
There is a chance, you will understand, in making reports at two different times 
from memoranda that there might be some variation, but not in any considerable 
amount. 

Q. Well, at the time you mailed the statement on December 2, when did you 
prepare that, do you remember?—A. No, sir; I do not. 

Q. Do you remember where you prepared it?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you remember whether you had the canceled checks at that time to 
guide you in the preparation of that report that you say you mailed on 
December 2?—A. No, sir; I cant’ say. 

Q. Mr. Shaw, I will ask you if you remember of having your book balanced 
and your canceled checks returned to you on December 29, 1920?—A. No ; I don’t 
remember the dates. I know the account was balanced and checks sent to me, 
I think, at various times, but I don’t remember when they were. 

Q. You haven’t your bank book with you to show when those times were?—- 
A. No, sir; I am willing to produce it. 

Q. We would be much pleased if you would. Do you know whether you have 
it in the city of Beardstown?—A. I do not. 

Q. Will you make a search for it?—A. I will. 

Q. Do you remember when you deposited the—what is the letter purporting to 
be written on December 2, 1920, that you say'is a carbon? Is that an office 
carbon?—A. It is a carbon copy of the original letter. 

Q. It is a carbon copy of the original letter?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the original letter, you say, was mailed in the post office at Beards¬ 
town? —A. Yes. 

Q. By whom?—A. Myself. 



36 


RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


Q. Did you do the act of depositing it in the post office?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You remember that, do you?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You remember the occasion of it?—A. Y^es, sir. 

Q. Did you register that letter?—A. I don’t think I did. 

Q. Do you remember where you deposited it in the post office; I mean what 
receptacle?—A. No; but I have the habit of depositing letters in the post office 
at the regular place. 

Q. l T ou have a definite recollection of depositing this letter, have you not?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Well, do you know whether you deposited this letter in the regular 
receptacle in the usual place you deposit letters or handed it to some of the 
employees?—A. I think it was deposited in the regular receptacle. 

Q. AYliat do you say as to whether it was registered?—A. I don’t think it was. 

Q. Accompanying that letter was a statement of your campaign receipts and 
expenditures from October 24 to December 2, 1920; is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is what the carbon copy purports to state, is it not, Mr. Shaw?—A. Yes, 
sir; from October 24 to December 2. 

Q. That is correct?—A. ATes, sir. 

Q. Was that statement made on a blank form provided to you from any 
source?—A. That is my memory. 

Q. Have you any definite recollection about it?—A. I think it was. 

Q. You are not positive?—A. I am pretty sure it was on the regular blank. 

Q. When you say pretty sure you haven’t any definite recollection as to 
whether that statement of expenses was made on a blank piece of paper or a 
proper blank, have you?—A. I am quite certain it was on a regular blank. 

Q. You mean you are positive it was?—A. Quite positive; it is easy to mis¬ 
take. 

Q. I want to get the condition of your mind, whether you have a definite recol¬ 
lection and are positive?—A. Yes, sir ; I am quite positive it was; it is very easy 
to be mistaken about it. 

Q. You might be mistaken about the blank which you say Exhibit 9b was on, 
might you not?—A. I don’t think so. 

Q. But you do not now have a definite recollection of what form that statement 
was in?—A. My recollection is that it was in the form such as you have in your 
hand. 

Q. That is your recollection?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But you won’t be sure?—A. I am quite positive; very sure. 

Q. You mean you are absolutely positive, or there is a doubt of your positive¬ 
ness?—A. There is no doubt as to my positiveness. 

Q. You are positive about mailing it?—A. Yes, sir; and about the form in 
which it was made out. 

Q. Thau, is true of both of them, now?—A. That is true of both of them. 

Q. Was that sworn to?—A. I think it was. 

Q. Before whom?—A. I don’t remember. 

Q. Do you have any idea as to whom it was sworn before?—A. T think I 
flight dig that information up from my memorandum. I will be willing to make 
a search for it. 

Q- You can’t now remember whether it was sworn to or who the officer was 
that administered the oath?—A. No; I don't know now. 

Q. But you think if given time you have a memorandum by which you could 
supply that informatin?— A. I have a memoranda in which I kept considerable 
information during the campaign, and I would be willing to search for that 
memoranda and see whether I have it, and if I have and can ascertain the in¬ 
formation you want I will be glad to give it to you. 

Q. Would that memoranda lead you to know of any new information as to 
what notary public administered the oath?—A. It might. 

Q. What memoranda have you in mind, Mr. Shaw?—A. The memoranda I 
have been talking about all the time. 

Q. Is that in book form?—A. I think it was kept in a little tablet, or pad. 

Q. Why did you deposit that statement in the post office?—\ Because I am 
not in town very much during the daytime. I get up prettv early and -et mv 
mail early in the morning before the window is open, and am seldom in town or 
at the post office at any time in the day until after I come home and have dinner 
and then usually come down and get my mail and deposit mail at that time 

Q. I asked why you deposited that statement in the post office. Did you un¬ 
derstand it vas necessai\ i A. No; I don’t think it matters where it was de- 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 37 

Q. Yon don’t think it matters or makes any difference where it was de¬ 
posited?—A. No, sir. 

Q. That was your idea at that time? You understand the provisions of the 
act that requires the making of this statement, do you not?—A. I thought I did. 

Q. You had made two previous statements, had you not?—A. I believe so. 

Q. One at the primary and one you say you mailed on the 24th?—A. Yes, sir; 
I think those are the dates. 

Q. You understood who those statements were to he made to and filed with, 
did you not?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. You made two statements before the primaries, didn’t you?—.4. Two of 
them embodied in one statement. 

Q. Two embodied in one? You didn’t make that on any blank, did you?—A. 
I don't think I did. 

Q. Anyway, those two statements had been made concerning the expenditures 
in the primary election under the same statute requiring later statements to be 
made, did you not? You were endeavoring to comply with a Federal statute?— 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And it was for that purpose you made out those statements and mailed, 
them?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You understood who to direct them to, did you not?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. And that the statute required them to be hied with the Clerk?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And that you could by depositing them hi the post office, stamped and 
registered, comply with that statute?—A. Yes. 

Q. Wliat do you say as to whether you registered it or not?—A. I didn’t 
register it. 

Q. Notwithstanding you knew it was one of the requirements?—A. I don’t 
think I understood it was one of the requirements of the statute. It said that 
may be considered sufficient evidence of filing. 

Q. You had read the statute?—A. That part of it. 

Q. And had read the instructions contained on the blanks that were issued by 
the proper authorities?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And were endeavoring to comply with that?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is correct; and those instructions contain this language; that is, on 
the blanks you filled out: “ The depositing of this statement in a legal post office, 
directed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, duly stamped and regis¬ 
tered, within the time above required, is a sufficient filing of the statements.” 
You were attempting to comply with that provision, were you not?—A. Yes; I 
was attempting to meet with the requirements. 

Mr. Dieterich. Let us recess now until 1 o'clock. 

Recess taken for lunch. 

Hearing resumed at 1 p. m. Present: Same as before. 

GUY L. SHAW, the contestee herein, resumed the stand for further cross- 
examination by Mr. Dieterich, and testified as follows: 

Q. Mr. Shaw, since the noon hour have you refreshed yourself as to what offi¬ 
cer. if any, you made affidavit to the statements you say you mailed to the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives?—A. No, sir. 

Q. And you are not able now to state who the officer was?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Calling your attention to contestee’s Exhibit 9a, purporting to be a state¬ 
ment of primary expenses prior to September 5. 1920, was that sworn to before 
anyone?—A. No, sir; that was not, I think. 

Q. That was not?—A. I think it was not. 

Q. That was mailed to Washington?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What day?—A. I do not recall. The records show. 

Q. The carbon of your letter here shows—letter written September 22, saying 
you inclosed that statement.—A. That would be the correct date. 

Q. You deposited that in the post office?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The Beardstown office?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you do that personally or have an employee do it?—A. Personally. 

Q. You remember that, do you, of your own knowledge?—A. Yes, s r. 

Q. And you know where you deposited that in the post office? Whether it 
was in the receptacle for mail, or did you hand it to one of the employees?—A. 

I think I placed it in the receptacle where the letters are usually deposited in 
the post office. 

Q. Was that registered?—A. No, sir; I don't think it was. 

Q. Did you make more than one statement with reference to your primary 
expenditures?—A. Two statements were included in the one. 


38 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Q. But they were all mailed at one time?—A. The both were mailed on one 

sheet of paper, at one time. ^ _ 1Qon , 

Q. And one was a statement of primary expenses before September • >, >. 

Why did you tix that date?—A. I don’t know why I fixed the date; I suppose 

for the same reason I fixed all the dates. . 

(). And the others prior to September 30, 1920, and after September o, way 
did you tix those dates?—A. I presume those were the dates 

Q. Do you know a gentleman by the name of Hollingsworth, at W aslnngton, 
connected with the Clerk’s office of the House of Representatives, tlieie? 

A. No, sir. # , 

Q. Do you know any of the deputies—are you acquainted with the ( lerk of 
the House of Representatives?—A. I have met him in his office. 

Q. Did you ever meet a gentleman there by the name of Hollingsworth?—A. I 
am not sure; I have heard the name and think it was included in the notice of 
taking of depositions in Washington which was served on me, fmt am not sure 
whether I met the gentleman or not. 

Q. Did you ever talk to Hollingsworth about this matter?—A. No, sir. 

, Q. Did you ever discuss the matter or mail the statements of your campaign 
expenditures with the Clerk of the House of Representatives or any deputy in 
his office?—A. I never discussed any phase <>f the question with any deputy in 
his office and there never was any discussion on that subject, or, I think, any 
other subject, between me and the Clerk of the House of Representatives except 
at a time when I went there to see if my reports—whether they had been 
received. 

(). Where were you when you made up the statement of which contestee’s 
Exhibit 9b and 9c are copies?—A. I think I was in Washington. 

Q. And which you filed as shown by this letter on January 31. 1921. You say 
you think you were in Washington?—A. I think I was. 

Q. Was Mr. Mumford, your attorney, with you at that time?—A. He was. 

Q. Where were you when you made up those statements?—A. At Congress 
Hall Hotel, I think. 

Q. That was just prior to January 31, this year?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. You say you think. Can you be any more positive than that?—A. Yes; 

I am sure. I didn’t do any work any place else other than the hotel. 

Q. Anyone with you?—A. No, sir. 

(>. Had you prior to that time talked to anyone in the office of the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives concerning your preparation and filing of 
reports—A. I don’t have any recollection of any such conversation. 

Q. What data did you make that from there?—A. The same data that I 
testified to several times this morning. 

Q. Did you have the canceled checks there?—A. I am not sure whether I 
did or not. Some of my information I had at home and some in Washington, 
and the reports would have been dated much earlier had I not been compelled 
to await a portion of it to be sent to me. 

Q. Under whose advice, if anybody’s, did you prepare the reports that you 
tiled on January 31 with the Clerk of the House of Representatives?—A. I 
don’t remember acting under any one's advice. 

Q. You did that of your own idea?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say that all the items of expenditures contained in contestee’s Ex¬ 
hibits 9b and 9c were expended for campaign purposes, for the legitimate 
expenses of campaign purposes?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When was the election?—A. I think the election was held on No¬ 
vember 2. 

Q. November 2?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you furnish anyone any money for the purpose of betting on the 
election?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know a gentleman by the name of Fisliback, of Carrollton?—A. I 
have met, I think on two occasions, a man residing at Carrollton by the name 
of Fisliback. 

Q. Did you ever furnish him with any money?—A. Not one cent, and never 
solicited his support or influence, if he has any, or in any way made any 
political campaign plans with him. 

Mr. Dieterich. I believe that is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Mumford : 

Q. You say, Mr. Shaw, you sent the last of these reports on December 2, 
1920, the preelection report, one month after the election?—A. What was the 
date? 









RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


39 


<>. The 2d of December, 1920.—A. Yes, sir. 

y<>u did not go to Washington until about what time? In .Tan- 
mu.\ .—A. I don t think I recall, but I think the latter part of the month per¬ 
haps the middle. 

D. About how long had you been in Washington before you deposited with 
the Clerk of the House, in person, these reports which were left there on the 
olsf of January? A. I can’t say, but it was the length of time required to 
write home for data concerning campaign expenses and have it sent to me 
and received in Washington. 

(}. You had received a notice of contest from Mr. Rainey, had vou not, dated 
December 16, 1920?—A. Yes, sir. 

(y And in that notice you were informed for the first time that your reports 
were not on lile in the Clerk’s office?—A. That was the first notice I had. 

Q. Then, very soon after that time did you go on to hunt and plan and file 
these reports you speak of?—A. Yes, sir. 

(>. Mr. Shaw, are you a lawyer?—A. I am not. 

D. Y\ hat is your occupation?—A. I have been engaged in farming all my 
life, until just recently getting away from it a little. 

D. Aie you and have you been holding any other office of honor from your 
neighbors?—A. I am a member of the constitutional convention. 

Q. The Illinois Constitutional Convention?-—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And were you engaged in tbe duties of that place during a considerable 
part of the year 1920?—A. Yes, sir; I was there a considerable part of the 
year. 

D. Where did that convention meet?—A. In Springfield, Ill. 

Q. So you were at Springfield a considerable portion of the time, were 
you, during that year?—A. I was. 

Q. Is the constitutional convention now finally adjourned or is it in recess 
now?—A. In recess. 

Q. Was it in recess at the time of the election in the fall of 1920 and a few 
weeks before that?—A. It was. 

Q. It was convenient for you, was it, Mr. Shaw, to have your bank trans¬ 
actions, or some of them, carried on in Springfield?—A. It was. 

(). Did you deposit both of these contributions from the national committee 
in that bank in Springfield?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. At about the time they were received?—A. Just a few days after they 
were received, each time. 

(). Have you in your possession here to-day receipts showing the dates of 
those deposits and the amounts of those deposits?—A. I have. 

Q. Here?—A. I think I have. 

Q. Will you produce them? [To reporter.] Mark these papers “ Contestee’s 
Exhibits Nos. 12a and 12b.” 

Papers marked “ Contestee's Exhibits Nos. 12a and 12b” for identification. 

Mr. Mumford. Mr. Shaw, do contestee’s Exhibits Nos. 12a and 12b, which I 
have in my hand, .show the deposit of moneys in Springfield, of $1,000 on Octo¬ 
ber 13 and $1,000 on October 26. 1920, and are these the contributions received 
from the committee? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you desire them to go in the record?—A. Yes, sir. 

Which said papers, marked “Contestee’s Exhibits Nos. 12a and 12b” are at¬ 
tached to this transcript of proceedings. 

Mr. Mumford. Did you, after the election, deposit any money in the Ridgely 
Hank, at Springfield, other than those two $1,000 deposits? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the amount of that deposit?—A. I don’t recall offhand, but I 
think $1,100 or $1,200. 

Q. Did that money or that deposit have anything to do with any political 
connection whatever?—A. Yes; I spent most, of it in campaign work. 

Q. Was it in the form of contributions or your own money?—A. My own 
money. 

Q. That was in addition to these two thousand-dollar deposits?—A. Yes, s r. 

Q. And after the election?—A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mumford. That is all. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Diktertch : 

Q. I believe you stated you were familiar with the law requiring all these 
statements when you filed your primary statement; is that correct?—A. Yes, 
sir; I think so. 


40 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Q. You were familiar with it when you filed the other statements. You say 
you filed your notice of answer in this matter?—A. I do not recall the date, 
but the date of taking of testimony in Washington. 

Q. When was the notice of contest tiled or served on you?—A. I don't remem¬ 
ber that; the data here will show. 

Q. To refresh your memory, wasn’t it the 20th of December?—A. I think that 
was about the time. 

Q. Did you tile any answer to that notice?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When?—A. I refer to the notice just mentioned; I do not recall the date. 

Q. The one you say was dated Washington, February 23, 1921, contestee’s 
Exhibit No. 10?—A. This is the notice I have reference to. 

Q. This is the only answer you have tiled ; is that correct?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You never tiled any answer other than this and deposited it in the 
post office?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Well, had you read t.he Federal statutes with reference to contests of 
election?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You had?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Did you know it was necessary to tile an answer to the contest?—A. I 
was confused on that point, and thought the answer, the other information that 
I had tiled, was sufficient answer. 

Q. Who advised you on that?—A. I don't think I advised with any lawyer; 

I was away from my own attorney at that time. 

Q. You mean to say you consulted the statutes yourself?—A. I didn’t consult 
the statutes, hut certain portions of the statutes. 

Q. You consulted the statutes in reference to contests of election, did you?— 
A. Partially so. 

Q. And you never tiled the answer to if. before February 23, and that was 
the day they were taking depositions; is that correct?—A. Yes, s r; I think so. 

Q. Up to that time you had neither affirmed nor denied the allegations in 
the notice of contest?—A. 1 stated that in taking the matter up after getting 
to Washington I was under the impression that the tiling of the reports, such 
as I did tile, was sufficient answer. 

Q. Y\ T i!l you give me an answer to this question: Up to February 23, 1921, so 
far as any answer being tiled by you or any denial being tiled by you, there had 
been none?—A. That is correct. 

Q. You say the $1,100 deposited in the hank at Springfield was not received 
from campaign contributions?—A. It was not. 

Q. Do you mind stating where that was received from—what source?—A. It 
was received from the source of personal income, which I think is not necessary 
to state. If my attorney says it is necessary to state it, or if the committee 
should want it, I should do so freely. 

Q. It doesn’t matter. Did you receive any contributions from the Republican 
central committee of Cass County?—A. I did not. 

Mr. Dieterich. That is all. 


Reredirect examination by Mr. Mumford: 

Q. Just one question. Mr. Shaw, do I clearly understand you as saying that 
you were under the impression that the reports of receipts and expenditures 
which you handed to the < Jerk of the House on the 31st of January, 1921, was a 
sufficient answer to the notice of contest until I advised you to the contrary ?—A 
Yes, s.r. 

Mr. Mumford. That is all. 


Rerecross-examination by Mr. Dieterich: 

Q. And the notice of contest was served on you on the 20th of December: is 
that correct?—A. I think that is about the date. 

Q. And you knew the law required that an answer he filed within 30 davs 
did you not?—A. I knew something about it. ' ’ ’ 

Q. Notwithstanding, neither one of these—neither what vou filed with the 
Clerk of the House of Representatives nor the answer denying here was filed 
within 30 days?—A. The records will show. * ’ n ea 

Mr. Mumford. That is probably correct. 

Mr. Dieterich. The statements were not filed until the 31st day of .Tanunrv 
and the other until the 23d day of February; is that correct^ 

The Witness. I think that is about true. 

Q. And your answer to Mr. Mumford was that you thought the statements 
filed on the 31st day of January were in compliance with the law’-AYes sir 
Mr. Dieterich. That is all. ‘ * ’ • 

Mr. Mumford. That is all. 





RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


11 


AFFIDAVIT. 

State of Illinois, Comity of Sangamon, ss: 

I* Guy L. Shaw, the contestee in these proceedings, having first been duly 
swoin, do hereby certify that I have carefully read the foregoing deposition 
and do affirm and acknowledge it as a true statement of the facts and cir¬ 
ca instances as set forth therein. 

Guy L. Shaw. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, a notary public in and for the county of 
Cass. State of Illinois, this 7th day of April, A. D. 1921. 

t SEAL -] D. M. Maney, 

Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 27, 1923. 

R()\ L. PHELPS, called as a witness in behalf of the contestee, having been 
first duly sworn, was examined in chief by Mr. Mumford, and testified as 
follows: 

Q. You may state your name to the notary.—A. Roy L. Phelps. 

Q. Where do you live?—A. I live right near Beardstown, on the Chandler- 
ville Road. 

Q. Did you have any connection with the Republican county central com¬ 
mittee of Cass County during the campaign in the fall of 1920?—A. I did. 

Q. What was your connection?—A. I was precinct committeeman. 

Q. Were you familiar with the actions of the committee in the course of the 
campaign?—A. To quite an extent. 

Q. Did that local county committee contribute any money to contestee, Mr. 
Shaw, for campaign purposes?—A. You mean through me? 

Q. Did it, so far as you know?—A. None, to my knowledge. 

Q. Did you, or did you not—would you, or would you not, know if the 
county committee had made any contribution to him?—A. I think I would. 

Q. Did Mr. Shaw receive any contribution toward his campaign expenses 
from the State Republican central committee of Illinois through your county 
commiteee?—A. Not that I know of, hut I am not in shape to say for certain. 
Not to my knowledge. I never heard of any. 

Q. Did you attend the meetings of your committee during the campaign?—A. 
I did. 

Q. Active in the conduct of the campaign?—A. Quite a hit. 

Q. Did you do any work for Mr. Shaw during the campaign?—A. I did, so 
far as the ticket was concerned. I d'dn't get out any more for Mr. Shaw than 
for the regular ticket, except I assisted him on one occasion. 

Q. Was that a voluntary act upon your part, or were you paid?—A. No, sir; 
no pay. 

(>. Do you know whether considerable other work and assistance was rendered 
without compensation?—A. lTes; there were several of us at one time that 
assisted him. It was just in the way of preparing literature. 

Q. Did Mr. Shaw conduct an active canvas and campaign for election?—A. 
Yes ; I think so. 

Q. Did he go out over the district circulating literature of this kind?—A. 
He did, so far as any of my supervision was concerned, in territory where I 
would have knowledge of it; yes. 

Q. He conducted an active campaign for election?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The amount of money he spent you have no means of knowing, I assume?— 
A. No; I haven't. 

Mr. Mumford. I think that is all. 

Mr. Dieteeich. No cross-examination. 

AFFIDAVIT. 

State of Illinois, County of Sangamon, ss: 

I. Roy L. Phelps, having first been duly sworn, do hereby certify that I have 
carefully read the foregoing deposition, and do affirm and acknowledge it as a 
true statement of the facts and circumstances as set forth therein. 

Roy L. Phelps. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, a notary public in and for the county of 
Class, State of Illinois, this lltli day of April, A. D. 1921. 

[seal.] 


D. M. Maney, 
Notary Public. 


42 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


G. W. MORTON called as a witness in behalf of the contestee, having first 
been duly sworn, was examined in chief by Mr. Mumford and testified as follows: 

Q. State your name.—A. G. W. Morton. 

Q. Where do you live?—A. 212 East Sixth Street, Beardstown, Cass County, 
Illinois. 

Q. You are acquainted with the contestee, Guy L. Shaw?—A. I am. 

Q. Are you or are you not a political and personal friend of his?—A. I am. 

Q. Were you intimately acquainted with him during his campaign for elec¬ 
tion?—A. I was. 

Q. Were you acquainted with what he was doing and the manner in which 
he was conducting the campaign?—A. Yes. 

Q. DM or did not Mr. Shaw make an active campaign out over the district 
himself?—A. He did. 

Q. Were you with him at that time?—A. I was about 10 days with him. 

<>. In what count es were you with him, Mr. Morton?—A. Morgan, Scott, 
Greene, Jersey, Calhoun, and Pike. 

Q. D.d Mr. Shaw spend any money on that occasion?—A. He did; he paid the 
expenses of—his expenses and my expenses and the taxi-driver's expenses. 

(„>. I presume you have no means of knowing how much he spent?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Rut he spent considerable money, did he?—A. He did. 

Q. Did you know of his having more or less paid publicity work in one way 
or another during the campaign, with newspapers and lithographs and literature 
of any sort outs.de of newspaper work?—A. Yes; lie used a lot of literature and 
lithographs; mailed out a large number of folders and letters. I don’t know 
how many. 

Q. Did you work for him and his interests at any time during the campaign 
other than at the times you were with him?—A. I did. 

Q. Where did you go for him?—A. I was in Morgan County. Pike, Scott; I 
made a trip to Springfield for him. 

Q. Were you not in Calhoun County, or were you?—A. Only when he was 
with me. These last counties I covered alone. 

Q. Mr. Morton, did he pay you at various times amounts of money for your 
work and expenses?—A. He did, for my expenses. 

Q. Did you have any knowledge of an occasion when Mr. Shaw’s wife bought 
$180 worth of stamped envelopes? I believe I have the amount right.—A. In this 
way: We supposed they wouldn’t have them here, and therefore we thought we 
would buy them in other towns. I went to Springfield; they happened to he 
out; and then back to Jacksonville and learned they could get them there and 
telephoned to Mrs. Shaw. I believe Mrs. Morton went over with her when she got 
the envelopes. 

Q. Did you afterwards know of bringing them into the office here?—A. Yes, 
sir; and the mailing of them. I mailed several boxes myself, put them on the 
train in bunches and sent them by express to other counties, to be mailed from 
the county seats. 

Q. Did you know of other persons besides yourself who worked for Mr. 
Shaw and in his interests?—A. I do. 

Q. Do they relate to election day or before election day?—A. Before elec¬ 
tion day, we were making a speaking tour of Scott and Pike Counties. L. A. 
Zorrien, of Princeton, was with me, and W. H. H. Miller, of Champaign. 

Q. Did Mr. Shaw pay the expenses of these trips?—A. Through me. 

Q. Furnished you money for that purpose?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was all the money paid to you paid for legitimate purposes and expended 
for legitimate purposes?—A. Yes, sir; for taxi hire, car fare, hotel bills, two 
or three items to newspapers, printing, telephone, and telegraph. 

Q. Were you frequently at Mr. Shaw’s office and his house while this cam¬ 
paign was carried on?—A. I was. 

Q. More or less familiar with the conditions of the campaign?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you have any attention called to any report or printing on blank 
forms of receipts and expenditures being filled out at Mr. Shaw’s house?—A. I 
did. 

Q. Did you see them there?—A. I did. 

Q. Have you any means, Mr. Morton, of recalling just when you saw them?— 
A. It was somewhere, on Sunday, between the 13th of October and election day. 

Q. You have no means of recalling just when it was?—A. It was on Sunday; 
I think the Sunday after the 13th of October. 

Q. But you saw a document of that kind there and knew it was being pre¬ 
pared.—A. Yes; we talked about it. 





RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


43 


Q. You know nothing personally about the mailing of it?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you have any personal observation of another report of a like charac¬ 
ter made on a printed form in December, or did you see that at all or know 
anything about that?—A. In December; no. 

Q. About a month after the election.—A. Not that I recall. 

Q. You didn't particularly examine this report which you saw?—A. No ; it was 
just lying off to the left, and he made the remark he was making out his report, 
and 1 believe I mentioned the money I had received. 

Q. Do you know Dr. Scliweer?—A. I do. 

Q. Postmaster at Beardstown?—A. l~es, sir. 

Q. Did you at any time have any conversation with Dr. Scliweer, postmaster 
at Beardstown, in which he made any statement in regard to Mr. Shaw obtaining 
a seat in C.ongress or on that subject?—A. One day we were talking politics, 
sometime in October, on the corner of State and Second Streets, and he said Mr. 
Shaw would never get to Congress. I believe that was the word—never get to 
('ongress. 

Q. When was that, before or after the election?—A. Before the election. 

(>. How long before?—A. A week or so; 1 don’t remember exactly. I just 
remember the conversation. 

Q. Did he give any further explanation of why he made that prediction?— 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Is there any other matter connected with these questions involved here 
that I haven't asked you about that you wish to state to tin 1 committee?—A. 
Not that I can think of. 

Mr. Mumfobd. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Dieterich : 

Q. So Dr. Scliweer said he didn’t think Mr. Shaw would get to Congress?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Nothing unusual about that remark, was there?—A. Well, I don’t know. 
He made the remark. 

Q. It was before the election?—A. I think so. 

Q. Do you remember what time in October?—A. No; I don't. I just re¬ 
member the conversation. 

Q. The fore part or latter part of October?—A. I think 5 t would he in the 
latter part, because in the fore part I wasn’t active in the campaign. 

Q. When did you become active?—A. The 13th of October. 

Q. Did you make any tour with Mr. Shaw?—A. I did, starting on the 13th of 
October. 

Q. Did you get back—when did you get back?—A. We started on Monday 
morning and got back Saturday night. Then we started off again the next 
Monday morning, I believe, ami were together a few days. I think we were 
together about 9 or 10 days. 

Q. Now, let me get that. On the 13th of October you started out, on Monday. 
You started out campaigning with Mr. Shaw. And made a tour of the counties 
you have mentioned.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What counties did you go to that week?—A. Morgan, Scott, Green, Jer¬ 
sey, Calhoun. Pike—we didn’t cover all of Pike, but worked through Pike and 
then hack through Morgan and on. 

Q. And then you came back on Saturday ?—A. Saturday night. 

Q. When did you leave with him again?—A. Monday morning. 

Q. The next Monday?—A. Yes. 

Q. A week from the Monday that you went before?—A. Yes. 

Q. And how long were you gone with him that time? Where did you go?— 
A. Went together over in Morgan County, then I went over to Pike myself. 

Q. Monday or Tuesday?—A. I can’t tell. I believe it was Tuesday morning. 

Q. Where did Mr. Shaw go?—A. He joined the special train that the Republi¬ 
cans had out and went down through Jacksonville. 

Q. Tuesday or Monday?—A. My recollection is that it was Monday, 

Q. Which way was that train going?—A. It came in over the Burlington, 
switched to the C. & A., and south on the C. A A. They said they were going 
to Roodhouse, Carrollton—I don’t know just where. 

Q. South part of the district?—A. Y'es. 

Q. And you say you saw one of these exhibits, a statement of some kind— 
when did you see that?—A. One Sunday. 

Q. Wh at Sunday was it?—A. Somewhere between the 13tli and election. 



44 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Q. You don’t know whether it was the Sunday after you got back?—A. I 
believe it was that Sunday, but am not positive. 

Q. Statement was made out, was it?—A. I didn’t examine it. I simply turned 
in my expense account. 

Q. You have been interested in Mr. Shaw's campaign, haven’t you?—A. Yes. sir. 

Q. By the way, you are the party that first asked him to become a candidate 
for Congress?—A. Well, I don't know. 

Q. You are one of them?—A. I asked him to become a candidate. 

Q. Before he became a candidate?—A. Possibly. 

Q. Have been interested in his campaign since? There isn't anything criminal 
about that?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. About how much money did he pay you during the campaign?—A. $119.75. 

Q. Pay you any after the campaign was over with?—A. No, sir. 

Q. None at all?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Ever give you any check after the campaign was over with—after elec¬ 
tion?—A. No, sir. 

Q. How did he make these payments to you?—A. He gave me a check on the— 
the first payment was $75. May I refresh my memory with the dates? 

Q. Yes.—A. On October 13 he gave me a check for $75. On October 23, 
another check for $19.75- 

Q. Where did he give you that check?—A. Here in Beardstown. 

Q. On the 23d?—A. l^es. 

Q. Didn't he give you that check when you started leaving for Pike County?— 
A. I don’t remember. 

Q. Did he—did you say he did or didn't?—A. I don’t remember. 

Q. He did give you a check when you left Jacksonville for Pike County, 
didn’t he?—A. The first check was for $75. when we were together. Then he 
paid all the expenses, and I carried that $75 with me. Then, when 1 got by 
myself, I used that and spent $19.75, which he refunded. 

Q. You used $19.75 out of the $75?—A. Of my money, over and above the $75. 

Q. And that is what the money represents?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. He was here in Beardstown when he gave you that check?—A. I am not 
positive. If I remember rightly, one of these two checks was given in Beards¬ 
town, one on the 24th for $25. 

Q. Where was he when he gave you that check?—A. In Beardstown. 

Q. Go ahead. Do you remember what bank that check was on?—A. No, sir. 

Q. After that, when did he give you money?—A. That is the $119.75. 

Q. That is all he ever gave you?—A. That is all he gave me for campaign 
purposes. I have done things for him, sold insurance, etc., he has paid me for 
five or six years, but that is all the campaign expenses. 

Q. Did he ever promise you anything during the campaign?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Never said anything to you about making you postmaster, did he?—A. No, 
sir. 

Mr. Dieterich. That is all. 

Mr. Mumford. That is all. 

AFFIDAVIT. 

State of Illinois, County of Cass, ss: 

I, G. W. Morton, having first been duly sworn, do hereby certify that I have 
carefully read the foregoing deposition, and do affirm and acknowledge it as 
a true statement of the facts and circumstances as set forth herein. 

G. W. Morton. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, a notary public in and for the county of 
Cass, State of Illinois, this lltli day of April, A. D. 1921. 

[seal.] D. M. Maney, 

Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 27. 1923. 

E. T. HUNTER, called as a witness on behalf of the contestee, having first 
been duly sworn, was examined in chief by Mr. Mumford, and testified as fol¬ 
lows : 

Q. What is your name?—A. E. T. Hunter. 

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Hunter?—A. Beardstown, Ill. 

Q. What is your vocation or employment?—A. Cashier, Beardstown State 
Bank. 



RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


45 


Q. Acting in that capacity during the presidential and congressional elections 
in the fall of 1920?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What, if any, connection did you have with the Cass County Central 
Committee during that campaign?—A. Secretary of the committee. 

Q. As secretary, you kept the records of the doings and plans of the commit¬ 
tee, did you, Mr. Hunter?—A. l r es, sir. 

Q. And attended its meetings?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did the Cass County Republican County Central Committee contribute 
any money to Guy Shaw’s campaign expenses?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did Mr. Shaw receive any assistance or aid in his campaign expenses 
from the Republican State Central Committee, so far as you know, as secre¬ 
tary of the county central committee?—A. No; not that I know of. 

Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Hunter, were you acquainted with the activities 
of Mr. Shaw, whether he made an active campaign for this election?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Had persons working for him in his interest?—A. l^es, sir. 

Q. And did you know of some work done gratuitously and without any ex¬ 
pectation of reward at all?—A. I don’t know anything about that proposition 
at all. I just knew he had some help; some people working for him, and I 
don’t know anything further about it. 

Q. Have any personal knowledge of the literature sent out—any of it?—A. 
No; except that I received through the mail the statements of whatever were 
sent out. 

Q. Did you know of his lithograph being posted or circulated in the dis¬ 
trict?—A. Only as I seen them. 

Q. You did see them posted?—A. Yes. 

Q. Was he away from Beardstown a considerable portion of the campaign?— 
A. I think he was. 

Q. I understand that the district comprises 10 counties, Mr. Hunter, and 
there are no large cities in the district at all.—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. An agricultural district?—A. l T es, sir. 

Q. Is there any other matter in connection with this contest that you think 
of which would be of assistance to the committee in determining these issues 
that I haven’t asked you about?—A. I don’t think so; I know very little about 
it myself. 

Mr. Mumford. That is all. 

Mr. Dieterich. That is all. 

Mr. Mumford. That is all, Mr. Hunter. 

AFFIDAVIT. 


State of Illinois, County of Cass, ss.: 

I. E. T. Hunter, having been first duly sworn, do hereby certify that I have 
carefully read the foregoing deposition, and do affirm and acknowledge it as a 
true statement of the facts and circumstances as set forth therein. 

E. T. Hunter. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, a notary public in and for the county of 
Cass, State of Illinois, this lltli day of April, A. D. 1921. 

[seal.] D.M Manet, 

Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 27, 1923. 

j p] HAYWOOD, called as a witness on behalf of the contestee. having first 
been duly sworn, was examined in chief by Mr. Mumford and testified as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Q. State your name.—A. J. E. Haywood. 

Q. Where do you live?—A. Beardstown. ^ ... . 

O Have any connection with the Republican County Central Committee ot 
Cass County during the elections here in 1920?—A. I was a member of the 

Q. Active in political work during the campaign?—A. Not outside of my own 

precinct. — 

Q. Attended committee meetings?—A. les, sir 

q who was treasurer of your committee. Mr. Haywood, if you remembei . 

A. I think it was J. Savage. 


46 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Q. Did the county central committee, so far as your knowledge and informa¬ 
tion go, furnish any money to Mr. Shaw for his expenses?—A. Not to my recol¬ 
lection or knowledge. 

Q. Did the Republican State Central Committee furnish any money, so far 
as your knowledge goes?—A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you know Mr. Shaw made an active campaign for election?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Out in the district, more or less?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. People working for him, various people, in his interest?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know what proportion of that work was paid for and what was 
voluntary?—A. No, sir; I do not. I can’t tell you. I know that I helped to do 
some voluntary work myself, that is all. 

Q. You know of work contributed in addition to what he paid for?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. You have no means of knowing how much money he spent himself?—A. 
I haven’t any idea. 

Mr. Mumford. That is all. 

Mr. Dietebich. No cross-examination. 

AFFIDAVIT. 

State of Illinois, 

County of Cass, ss: 

I, ,T. E. Haywood, having tirst been duly sworn, do hereby certify that I have 
carefully read the foregoing deposition, and do affirm and acknowledge it as a 
true statement of the facts and circumstances as set forth therein. 

,T. E. Haywood. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, a notary public in and for the county of 
Cass, State of Illinois, this lltli day of April. A. D. 1921. 

[seal.] D. M. Maney, 

Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 27. 1923. 

DICK SPICKER, called ns a witness on behalf of the contestee, having first 
been duly sworn, was examined in chief by Mr. Mumford and testified as 
follows: 

Q. Your name.—A. Dick Spicker. 

Q. Where do you live?—A. In Reardstown. 

Q. What is your occupation?—A. Printing. 

Q. What is the name of the firm with which you are connected?—A. The 
Dick Spicker Printing Co. 

Q. Is it a job-printing company?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You know Mr. Shaw, do you?—A. l"es, sir. 

Q. Did your company do considerable work for him, campaign work, during 
the campaign?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you receive considerable payments from him for that work?—A. I 
received all that was due. 

Q. Any means of remembering the exact amounts you received, Mr. Spicker?_ 

A. I have a statement of it. [Hands paper to Mr. Mumford.] 

Q. You received a total of $394.05?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the payments were made at different times, as indicated on this state¬ 
ment?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that campaign printing?—A. Well. now. I can't say whether all of 
it was or not, but the biggest part of it was. 

Q. You don’t remember the particular items of printing?—A. I do not. 

Q. What was the character of campaign work you got out for him?—A Some 
poster cards, some folders, envelopes—I can tell you by that better. 

Q. Well, at any rate, that amount of money was paid to you for work during 
that campaign?—A. Yes. sir. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Dieterich : 

Q. You don't know whether that amount is campaign work**—\ I don’t 

Mr. Dieterich. That is all. 

Mr. Mumford. That is all. 




RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


47 


AFFIDAVIT. 

State of Illinois, 

Count}i of Cass, ss: 

I, Dick Spicker, having first been duly sworn, do hereby certify that I have 
carefully read the foregoing deposition, and do affirm and acknowledge it as a 
true statement of the facts and circumstances as set forth therein, 

Dick Spicker. 

Sworn and subscribed, before me, a notary public in and for the county of 
("ass. State of Illinois, this lltli day of April, A. D. 1921. 

I seal. 1 D. M. Maney, 

Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 27. 1923. 

Which were all of the depositions taken in the proceedings on this date. 

STIPULATION. 

It is stipulated between the parties and by their respective attorneys present 
that the reporter who takes this evidence in shorthand may transcribe his 
notes into typewritten matter as soon as possible and not later than the 6th 
day of April, A. D. 1921, and may deliver them to the notary public before 
whom this testimony is taken, and that the notary public may then submit 
each witness's testimony to the witness and have him sign it and swear to it, 
and it may be then forwarded to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, 
at Washington, D. C., with like effect as if done on this day. 

Contestee’s Exhibit No. 1. 

To Hon. Henry T. Rainey , contestant, and to IE. H. Dieterich and John F. 

McCarron, his attorneys: 

You and each of you will please take notice that on the 2d day of April, 
A. D. 1921, at 9 o'clock a. m. of said day, at the directors’ room of the Beards- 
town State Bank, No. 120 Second Street, Beardstown, Ill., the contestee will 
take the depositions of the following-named witnesses: Hon. Guy L. Shaw 
(contestee), E. T. Hunter, W. J. White, John D. Spicker, G. W. Morton, 
William Scullion, C. F. Neiman, A. C. Davis, Louis Heeman, W. F. Thron, 
Harry Harper, .T. E. Haywood, Pearl Wagner, Pearl Nelson, Helen Steadman, 
Amil Wagner, Roy Phelps, all of Beardstown, Ill., to lie offered and used on 
behalf of contestee in this proceeding. Said depositions will be taken before 
and certified by D. M. Maney, a notary public in and for Cass County, Ill., 
under the provisions of the law in that respect made. 

Taking of said testimony and depositions will be continued from day to day 
until the same are completed, when and where you may act as advised, etc. 

Done at the city of Pittsfield, in Pike County, Ill., this March 22, 1921. 

William Mumford. 

Barry Mumford, 

Attorneys for Contestee. 

County of Cass, 

State of Illinois, ss: 

G. W. Morton, being first duly sworn, on his oath says that he served the 
above and foregoing notice upon the attorney for contestant, W. H. Dieterich, 
Esq., at said Cass County by delivering to him a true copy thereof this 23d 
day of March, A. D. 1921. 

G. W. Morton. 


Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23d day of March, A. D. 1921. 


[seal,] 

My commission expires January 27. 1923. 


I). M. Maney, 

Notary Public. 


Contestee’s Exhibit No. 2. 

[Post Office Department. Official business. Original Reg. No. 1363.] 

Postmark of delivering office and date of delivery: Beardstown, Ill., March 
26, 7.30 p. m. 

William and Barry Mumford, Pittsfield, Ill. 



48 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


REGISTRY RETURN RECEIPT. 

Received from the postmaster registered article, the original number of which 
appears on the reverse side of this card. 

Date of delivery : March 2G, 1921. 

Henry T. Rainey. 


Contestee’s Exhibit No. 3. 

To .Hon. Henri / T. Rainey, contestant, and to W. H. Dieterieh and John F. 

McCavion, his attorneys: 

You and each of you will please take notice that on the 2d day of April, 
A. D. 1921, at 9 o’clock a. m. of said day, at the directors’ room of the Beards- 
tovvn State Bank, No. 120 Second Street. Beardstown, Ill., the contestee will take 
the depositions of the following-named witnesses: Hon. Guy L. Shaw, con¬ 
testee ; E. T. Hunter, W. J. White, John D. Spicker, G. W. Morton, William 
Scullion, C. F. Neiman, A. C. Davis, Louis Heeman, W. F. Thron, Harry Harper, 
J. E. Haywood, Pearl Wagner, Pearl Nelson, Helen Steadman, Amil Wagner, 
Roy Phelps, all of Beardstown, Ill., to he offered and used on behalf of contestee 
in this proceeding. Said depositions will be taken before and certified by 
D. M. Maney, a notary public in and for Cass County, Ill., under the provisions of 
the law in that respect made. 

Taking of said testimony and depositions will be continued from day to day 
until the same are completed, when and where you may act as advised, etc. 

Done Jit the city of Pittsfield, in Pike County, Ill., this March 22, 1921. 

William and Barry Mumford, 

Attorneys for Contestee. 

City of Washington, 

District of Columbia, ss: 

E. J. Howard, being first duly sworn, on his oath says that he served the 
above and foregoing notice upon John F. McCarron, Hon. H. T. Rainey’s attorney, 
at the said city of Washington, by delivering to him a true copy thereof this- 
24th day of March, A. D. 1921. 

E. .T. Howard. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of March, A. D. 1921. 

[ SEAL. J T. J. ENRTGHT, 

Notary Public, District of Columbia . 

My commission expires October 22, 1925. 


Contestee’s Exhibit No. 4. 

State of Illinois, 

County of Cass, ss: 

The people of the State of Illinois to E. T. Hunter, IF. J. White, John }).. 
Spicker, G. IF. Morton, Wm. Scullion, C. F. Neiman, A. C. Danis, Louis Hee¬ 
man, IF. F. Tliron, Harry Harper, J. E. Haywood, Pearl Wagner, Pearl Nel¬ 
son, Helen Steadman, Amil Wagner, Roy Phelps, Olive Steadman: 

You are hereby commanded to be and appear before me, a notary public in 
and for said Cass County, at the directors’ room, in the Beardstown State 
Bank, at 120 Second Street in Beardstown, Ill., in the city of Beardstown, in 
said Cass County, on Saturday, the 2d day of April, A. D. 1921, at 9 o’clock 
a. m. of said day, and from day to day until the taking of the testimony is 
finished, then and there to testify the truth in a certain contest proceeding now 
depending in the House of Representatives of the United States, wherein Hon. 
Henry T. Rainey is contestant and Hon. Guy L. Shaw is contestee in a con¬ 
test of an election of Representative in and for the twentieth congressional 
district of the State of Illinois, and this you and each of you shall in no wise 
omit, under the penalty of the law. 

Given under my hand and notarial seal, at Beardstown, Ill., this 23d dav of 
March, A. D. 1921. 

[seal.] D. M. Maney, Notary Public. 





RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


49 


State of Illinois. 

County of Cass, ss: 

W . S. Morton, being first duly sworn, on Ids oath says that lie served the 
above and foregoing subpoena upon each of the above-named witnesses by de¬ 
livering to each of them a true copy thereof, this 23d day of March, A. D. 
1921. 

G. W. Morton. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23d day of March, A. D. 1921. 

[seal.] D. M. Maney, Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 27. 1923. 


Contestee’s Exhibit No. 5. 

Washington, D. C., February l.\, 1921. 

Guy L. Shaw, 

Beard stolen. III. 

Sir: Please take notice that on the 23d day of February, 1921, at the hour 
of 10 a. m., at the office of the Clerk of the United States House of Representa¬ 
tives at the Capitol Building, Washington, D. C., the deposition of Hon. William 
Tyler Page, Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, Washington, 
D. C.; T. E. Meeker. 701 Albee Building, Washington, D. C.; Hon. John Hollings¬ 
worth, Chief Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, Washington, 
D. C.; Hon Simeon D. Fess, United States House of Representatives, Wash¬ 
ington, D. C.: Hon. Henry T. Rainey. United States House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C.; in this cause will be taken before Charles E. Gebhardt, Esq., 
Wilkins Building, Washington, D. C.. a notary public for the District of 
Columbia, under the provisions of section 107 of the act of January 10, 1873, 
and section 2 of the act of March 2, 1875, Revised Statutes. Taking of testimony 
will continue from day to day until completed. Please govern yourself 
accordingly. 

W. H. Dieterich, 

John F. McCarron, 

Attorneys for Henry T. Rainey, Contestant. 


Contestee’s Exhibit No. 6. 

Beardstown, III., February 19, 1921. 

Guy L. Shaw, 

Beardstown, III. 

Sir: Take notice* that on the 25tli day of February, A. D. 1921, at the hour 
of 10 o’clock a. m., at the law oftices of W. T. Gordley, at 2051 State Street, in 
the city of Beardstown, county of Cass and State of Illinois, the deposition of 
E. T. Hunter, cashier of the Beardstown State Bank of Beardstown. Ill.; 
Robert H. Garni, president of the First State Bank of Beardstown, Ill.; Ledru 
Schaeffer, one of the copartners doing business under the firm, style, and 
name of the Schaeffer Publishing Co.; Rowland Crum, Beardstown, Ill.; Galen 
Morton, Beardstown, Ill.; W. J. White, Beardstown, Ill.; J. D. Spicker, Beards¬ 
town Ill ; Guv L. Shaw, Beardstown, Ill.; H. W. Hackman, president of the 
Beardstown State Bank, of Beardstown, Ill.; Clifford C. Garin, cashier of the 
First State Bank of Beardstown, Ill.; A. E. Sclimoldt, in this cause will be 
taken before W. T. Gordley, Esq.. 2054 State Street, Beardstown, Ill., a notary 
public in and for the County of Cass and State of Illinois, under the provisions 
of section 107 of an act of January 10, 1873, and section 2 of March 2, 1875, 
Revised Statutes. Taking of testimony will continue from day to day until 
completed. Please govern yourself accordingly. 

Emil Slessinger, 

W. H. Dieterich, 

Attorneys for Henry T. Rainey, Contestant. 


4G991—21 


4 





50 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Oontestee’s Exhibit No. 7. 

February 10, 1921. 

Mr. W. H. Dieterich, 

Beard stolen. III. 

Dear Sir: I have received from you notice to be in Washington, P. C . on 1 cb- 
ruary 23. 1921, for the purpose of taking depositions, made all my arrangements 
accordingly, and just on the eve of my departure for Washington you have 
caused to he served on me notice that depositions will he taken in Reardstown, 
III., on February 25, 1921. It is, as I believe you know, utterly impossible for 
me to comply with both of these notices. The taking of depositions in Wash¬ 
ington will consume a considerable amount of time. It is, therefore, impossible 
to do so and return to Reardstown by February 25 to take depositions. 

I can not do the impossible, and if you insist upon taking depositions in 
Reardstown on February 25. 1921, I will lie compelled to move to suppress, 
and will do so. 

If you will arrange to take these depositions at a later date when I can be 
here. I will not offer objections. 

Very truly, yours, 


(Contestee’s Exhibit No. 8, letter from William Tyler Page, Clerk of House 
of Representatives, to Hon. Guy L. Shaw, omitted in printing.) 

(Contestee’s Exhibit No. 9a, primary expenses prior to September 5, 1920. and 
prior to September 30, 1920, and after September 5, 1920, omitted in printing.) 

(Contestee’s Exhibits Nos. 9b and 9c, publicity statements for filing before 
general election and for filing after general election, omitted in printing.) 

(Note by the Clerk of the House. —Contestee’s Exhibits 8, 9a, 9b, and 9c 
were omitted from the printed record on objection by attorney for contestant 
sustained by the Clerk.) 

(Contestee’s Exhibit No. 10, answer of contestee to notice of contest (dupli¬ 
cate), omitted in printing.) 

Contestee’s Exhibit No. 11. 

To the citizens of the twentieth congressional district of Illinois: 

We, the undersigned citizens of the city of Reardstown, Cass County, Ill., 
hereby certify that we have carefully and accurately audited the campaign 
receipts and expenditures of Hon. Guy L. Shaw, covering both the recent 
primary and the general election, and wherein he was elected to the National 
House of Representatives, and we further certify that such audit shows that 
Mr. Shaw fully accounts for all moneys received by him in connection with said 
campaign and, further, shows that no moneys received by him for campaign 
expenses were in any manner misused by him or converted to any other purpose 
or purposes whatsoever. 

Dated this 8th day of January, A. D. 1921. 

E. T. Hunter, secretary county central committee; Walter P. Meyer, 
precinct committeeman, West Reardstown, No. 1; Roy L. Phelps, 
precinct committeeman, East Reardstown; ,T. L. Long; E. H. 
Schumann; F. Wm. Wessel; W. G. Mooney; G. M. Humphrey, 
E. J. Howard. 


Contestee’s Exhibit No. 12a. 

Ridgely-Farmers State Rank, 
Springfield , III ., October 13 . 1920. 

Your favor of 13th instant received, with inclosures as stated. We credit 
you $1,000. 

Out-of-town items credited subject to payment only. 

Yours, respectfully. 

Alfred O. Peterson, Cashier. 






RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


51 


Contestee’s Exhibit No. 12b. 

Ridgely-Farmers State Bank, 
Springfield, III., October 26, 1920. 

Your favor of 25th instant received, with inclosures as stated. We credit 
you $1,000. 

Out-of-town items credited subject to payment only. 

Yours, respectfully, 

Alfred O. Peterson, Cashier. 


House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C., March 26, 1921. 

Wm. and Barry Mumford, 

Pittsfield, III. 

Dear Sir : I am in receipt of your communication. The matter will receive 
immediate attention. Am in receipt of notice to take depositions. 

Very truly, yours, 

Henry T. Rainey, M. C. 

I, the below-subscribed notary public, here certify and make known— 

That I am an acting and qualified notary public in and for Cass County, Ill. 

That I am the identical person named in the attached notice to take depo¬ 
sitions. 

That I issued the subpcena hereto attached and herewith tiled. 

That on the day and at the place named in said notice to take depositions, 
the said parties and their said attorneys attended before me to examine and 
cross-examine each of said witnesses as above reported, and that each of such 
witnesses, after being severally sworn as stated in the caption, testified as above 
reported. 

That by agreement and stipulation of the said parties, contestant and con- 
testee, I continued the taking and certifying of said depositions from day to day 
to the date of this certificate. 

That each of the above-named witnesses read and signed his several deposi¬ 
tions as above given, and each was severally sworn thereto by me. 

Done at Beardstown, Ill., this April 11. A. D. 1921. 

[seal.] D. M. Maney, 

xV otarg Public. 

My commission expires January 27. 1923. 

DEPOSITIONS FOR CONTESTANT IN REBUTTAL. 

The depositions of T. J. Scliweer, Joseph Elliott, and George I. Buck, of 
the city of Beardstown, in the county of Cass and State of Illinois, witnesses 
of lawful age, produced, sworn, and examined upon their respective corporal 
oaths on the 16tli day of April, A. D. 1921, at the office of W. T. Gordley, at 
2051 South State Street, in the city of Beardstown. in the county of Cass and 
the State aforesaid, by me, W. T. Gordley, a notary public in and for the 
county of Cass and State of Illinois, the said T. J. Scliweer, Joseph Elliott, and 
George I. Buck, each being first duly sworn by me as witnesses in said cause 
previous to the commencement of their respective examinations to testify the 
truth, as well on the part of Henry T. Rainey, contestant, as Guy L. Shaw, 
contestee, in relation to the matters in controversy between the said contestant 
and contestee, so far as should he interrogated, testified and deposed as follows. 

At the taking of said depositions W. H. Deiterich appeared as attorney for 
the contestant, Henry T. Rainey, and William Mumford appeared as attorney 
for Guy L. Shaw, contestee. 

Previous to the commencement of the examination of witnesses W. H. 
Deiterich, on behalf of the contestant, offered in evidence notice of taking of 
depositions served upon William Mumford, attorney for Guy L. Shaw, dated 
April 11, A. D. 1921; affidavit of W. H. Dieterich. subscribed and sworn to April 
16, A. D. 1921, before W. T. Gordley; notice for taking of depositions directed 
to Guy L. Shaw, dated April 9. A. D. 1921, to which is attached two post- 
office registry receipts; subpoena issued by W. T. Gordley, notary public, dated 
February 9, A. D. 1921, all of which are hereto attached. 



52 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


The said T. .T. SCHWEER, being first duly sworn by me as a witness in said 
cause previous to the commencement of his examination to testify the truth as. 
well on the part of the contestant as the contestee, in relation to the matters- 
in controversy between said contestant and contestee, so far as he should be 
interrogated, testified as follows: 

Direct examination by W. H. Dieterich : 

Interrogatory first. State your name. 

Answer to interrogatory first. T. J. Scliweer. 

Interrogatory second. Where do you live? 

Answer to interrogatory second. Beardstown, Ill. 

Interrogatory third. What is your business? 

Answer to interrogatory third. Postmaster. 

Interrogatory fourth. What is your profession? 

Answer to interrogatory fourth. Physician and surgeon. 

Interrogatory fifth. How long have you lived in Beardstown? 

Answer to interrogatory fifth. Fifty-one years. 

Interrogatory sixth. That is you have lived here all your life? 

Answer to interrogatory sixth. Yes. 

Interrogatory seventh. At Beardstown, Ill.? 

Answer to interrogatory seventh. Yes, sir. 

Interrogatory eighth. Calling your attention to the months of September; 
October, November, and December, 1920, who, if any one. had charge of the* 
outgoing mail at the post office in Beardstown, during that time? 

Answer to interrogatory eighth. Joseph Elliott in the daytime, and George I.. 
Buck at night. 

Interrogatory ninth. Mr. Scliweer, did you, during the months of September, 
October, November, and December, 1920, or at any other time, give any direc¬ 
tions or instructions to your employees who had charge of the outgoing mail 
or any other employees with reference to any mail delivered to the post office 
by Guy L. Shaw? 

Answer to interrogatory ninth. I never did. 

Interrogatory tenth. Did you yourself ever see or have your attention called 
to or call any other employee's attention to any mail delivered to the post office 
by Guy L. Shaw, or any one for him, directed to the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives, at Washington, D. C.? 

Answer to interrogatory tenth. I never did. 

Interrogatory eleventh, l^ou are acquainted with Guy L. Shaw? 

Answer to interrogatory eleventh. l r es. 

Interrogatory twelfth. Y T ou knew that he was a candidate for Congress from 
this district at the primary election? 

Answer to interrogatory twelfth. Yes, sir. 

Interrogatory thirteenth. And that he was a candidate for Congress from 
this district at the general election on the Republican ticket? 

Answer to interrogatory thirteenth. Yes, sir. 

Interrogatory fourteenth. Did you know during the months of September, 
October, November, and December, 1920, that the law required a candidate for 
Congress to make a statement of his campaign expenses to anyone? 

Answer to interrogatory fourteenth. I did not. 

Interrogatory fifteenth. Did you know during the months of September, Oc¬ 
tober. November, and December, 1920. that a candidate for Congress should 
file a statement of expense with the Clerk of the House of Representatives at 
Washington, D. C.? 

Answer to interrogatory fifteenth. I never did. 

Interrogatory sixteenth. Did you know that there was a provision in the law 
by which a candidate for Congress could comply with the law by mailing a 
statement of his expenses, addressed to the Clerk of the House of Representa- 
tives, prepaid and registered? 

Answer to interrogatory sixteenth. No. sir. 

Interrogatory seventeenth. Did you at any time after December, 1920, or 
during December, 1920, obtain the knowledge that there was a law’requiring 
a candidate for Congress making a statement of expense? 

Answer to interrogatory seventeenth. Yes, sir. 

Interrogatory eighteenth. When? 

Answer to interrogatory eighteenth. I don't know the exact date, but it was 
at the time of the notice of contest of election. 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


53 


Interrogatory nineteenth. And you say that it was at this time that you 
acquired the knowledge that such a statement should he made? 

Answer to interrogatory nineteenth. Yes, sir. 

Interrogatory twentieth. Did you know at this time with whom such a state¬ 
ment should be tiled? 

Answer to interrogatory twentieth. No. 

Interrogatory twenty-tirst. When did you first acquire the knowledge that 
a statement of that character should he filed with the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives ? 

Answer to interrogatory twenty-first. Here, about two weeks ago, when depo¬ 
sitions were taken before I). M. Maney: that was the first knowledge I had that 
such statement had tb lie mailed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Interrogatory twenty-second. Are you acquainted with a man by the name of 
G. W. Morton in this city? 

Answer to interrogatory twenty-second. Yes. 

Interrogatory twenty-third. Did you ever have a conversation with G. W. 
Morton prior to the general election in November, 1920, in which you stated to 
him that Guy L. Shaw would never be elected to Congress? 

Answer to interrogatory twenty-third. I never did. 


Cross-examination by William Mumfoed : 


Cross-interrogatory first. Dr. Schweer, what did you say to Mr. Morton? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory first. I don't know as I ever said anything to 
Mr. Morton. I don't know as I ever held a conversation with Rev. Morton 
in regard to the congressional election. 

Cross-interrogatory second. I do not mean simply to say that you did not 
say to Morton that Guy L. Shaw would not be elected, but I mean to say that you 
never had any conversation with him on the subject? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory second. I mean that I never stated that Guy 
L. Shaw would not be elected and I do not remember ever having had any con¬ 
versation with him in regard to the congressional election. 

Cross-interrogatory third. Have you in mind, Dr. Schweer, the street corner 
at which Mr. Morton claimed the conversation was said? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory third. I do not know where he claims the con¬ 
versation was held, as I never read his evidence. 

Cross-interrogatory fourth. Did you ever have any political discussion or con¬ 
versation with him during the campaign? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory fourth. I do not remember of any. 

Cross-interrogatory fifth. You are not able to say that you did not have any 


such conversation? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory fifth. I do not remember, but do not say that 
I did not discuss anything with him in a general way. 

Cross-interrogatory sixth. You knew, Dr. Schweer, that Mr. Morton was 
strongly supporting Mr. Shaw? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory sixth. Not necessarily so. 

Cross-interrogatory seventh. Well, what did you mean, that you did not 
know ? 


Answer to cross-interrogatory seventh. No; I did not. 

Cross-interrogatory eighth. You. of course, were opposed to Mr. Shaw? 
Answer to cross-interrogatory eighth. I was not working for him. 
Cross-interrogatory ninth. Were you working against him i 
Answer to cross-interrogatory ninth. I was not. 

tenth. Of course, your political connection was with an- 


tenth. Yes. 
Ami you are 


a personal friend of the Demo- 


Cross-interrogatory 
other party? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory 
Cross-interrogatory eleventh, 
cratie candidate? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory eleventh. Yes, sir. 

Cross-interrogatory twelfth. What was your attitude and what was your 

feeling toward Mr. Shaw, friendly or hostile? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory twelfth. My feelings toward Mr. Shaw weu. 
neutral neither friendly nor hostile; I had no part in the campaign. 

Cross-interrogatory thirteenth. Did you. Dr. Schweer, or did you not have 
feelings of personal hostility toward Mr. Shaw ? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory thirteenth. I did not. # 
Cross-interrogatory fourteenth. You were postmaster during the whole 

paign? 


cam- 



54 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Answer to cross-interrogatory fourteenth. Yes. 

Cross-interrogatory fifteenth. What part of your time did you personally 
give to the office in Beardstown, about what portion? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory fifteenth. I reported at the office every morn¬ 
ing at 7 o’clock a. m.; then I was there on and oft’ until 6 o'clock p. m., being al¬ 
ways there at closing time. 

Cross-interrogatory sixteenth. Were you reasonably constant in your at¬ 
tendance through the day at the office? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory sixteenth. Yes, sir. 

Cross-interrogatory seventeenth. Were you not engaged in the practice of 
medicine? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory seventeenth. Yes. 

Cross-interrogatory eighteenth. But your principal personal attention was 
given to the office? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory eighteenth. Both of them. 

Cross-interrogatory nineteenth. Did you assist in the distribution or prepara¬ 
tion of mail for shipment? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory nineteenth. No, sir. 

Cross-interrogatory twentieth. So that you would hardly have had an oppor¬ 
tunity to know much about the particular packages of mail that you sent out 
of the office? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory twentieth. No. sir. 

Cross-interrogatory twenty-first. Are these two employees whom you have 
named the persons who did have that charge? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory twenty-first. Yes. 

Cross-interrogatory twenty-second. What were their hours on duty? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory twenty-second. Mr. Elliott went on at 9 o’clock 
a. m. and worked until 6 o’clock p. m.: Air. Buck went on at 9 o’clock p. m. and 
worked until 5 o’clock a. m.; between 6 p. m. and 9 p. m. no one worked in the 
office. 

Cross-interrogatory twenty-third. Do you happen to know at what hour Mr. 
Shaw usually deposited his mail in the office? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory twenty-third. I do not. 

Cross-interrogatory twenty-fourth. You say, Doctor, that before the com¬ 
mencement of this contest you had no actual knowledge of the requirement of 
the law.that these reports should he furnished? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory twenty-fourth. No. 

Cross-interrogatory twenty-fifth. After you acquired that knowledge you did 
not know that the law might he complied with by depositing the reports in the 
local post office for delivery? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory twenty-fifth. I did not. 

Cross-interrogatory twenty-sixth. Can you state about how many pieces of 
mail were handled daily during this period? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory twenty-sixth. We keep no account of the pieces 
of mail handled daily. 

Cross-interrogatory twenty-seventh. What is the population of Beardstown? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory twenty-seventh. About 7,300. 

Cross-interrogatory twenty-eighth. How many routes go out from the office? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory twenty-eighth. Four city routes and three rurai 
routes. 

Cross-interrogatory twenty-ninth. So that the office serves a population alto¬ 
gether of about how many ? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory twenty-ninth. Well, about 7.S00; about 500 on 
rural routes. 

Cross-interrogatory thirtieth. Now, is it true, Dr. Scliweer, that the quantity 
of mail is very much greater during a campaign than ordinary times? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory thirtieth. Yes; especially the incoming mail, 
not so much the outgoing mail. I haven t any means of estimating the number 
of pieces handled per day. 

Cross-interrogatory thirty-first. Are you never required to make a counts 

Answer to cross-interrogatory thirty-first. Why, once in a while we make a 
count, and on the last count conducted we reported an average of about 2 700 
per day, and that was a 6-day run. 

Cross-interrogatory thirty-second. Now, Dr. Schweer, is that outgoing mail 
or both? 1 89 ’ 

Answer to cross-interrogatory thirty-second. Outgoing: that is what we 
cancel with the machine. 




RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


55 


Cross-interrogatory thirty-third. When was that test made? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory thirty-third. Four or five months ago; don’t 
remember the exact date. 

Cross-interrogatory thirty-fourth. It was after the November election? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory thirty-fourth. No; I think it was prior to it. 

Mr. Mumford. I think that is all. 

The said JOSEPH ELLIOTT, being first duly sworn by me as a witness in 
said cause previous to the commencement of hi^ examination to testify the 
truth, as well on the part of the contestant as the eontestee. in relation to 
the matters in controversy between said contestant and eontestee, so far as 
he should be interrogated, testified as follows: 

Direct examination by W. H. Dieterich : 

Interrogatory first. State your name. 

Answer to interrogatory first. Joseph F. Elliott. 

Interrogatory second. Where do you live? 

Answer to interrogatory second. Keardstown, Ill. 

Interrogatory third. How long have you lived in Keardstown? 

Answer to interrogatory third. I was born and raised here, was out of the 
city for about five years, but have lived here for last three or four years. 

Interrogatory fourth. What is your business or occupation? 

Answer to interrogatory fourth. Postal clerk. 

Interrogatory fifth. In the post office at Keardstown, Ill.? 

Answer to interrogatory fifth. Yes, sir. 

Interrogatory sixth. What was your occupation during the months of Sep¬ 
tember, October, November, and December, 1920? 

Answer to interrogatory sixth. Postal clerk. 

Interrogatory seventh. What were your hours of employment? 

Answer to interrogatory seventh. From 9 a. m. until 6 p. m., with hour off 
for lunch. 

Interrogatory eighth. What are your duties? 

Answer to interrogatory eighth. Dispatching outgoing mail and routing in¬ 
coming mail. 

Interrogatory ninth. Did you have charge of the outgoing mail during these 
months of September, October, November, and December, 1920? 

Answer to interrogatory ninth. 1 did. 

Interrogatory tenth. Did you ever receive any instructions from anyone in 
reference to any mail deposited in the post office by Ouy L. Shaw? 

Answer to interrogatory tenth. I did not. 

Interrogatory eleventh. Did you ever have your attention called to any letters 
mailed by Guy L. Shaw addressed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
at Washington, D. C. ? 

Answer to interrogatory eleventh. I did not. When we distribute the outgoing 
mail we just read the city and State that mail is going to; so many letters, in 
fact, we don’t care who the party is they are addressed to; just the city and 
State they are going to. 

Interrogatory twelfth. Did you know during the months of September, Oc¬ 
tober, November, and December, 1920, that it was necessary for a candidate 
for Congress to file a statement of any kind with the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives? 

Answer to interrogatory twelfth. I did not. 

Cross-examination by William Mumford: 

Cross-interrogatory first. Your hours were from 9 o’clock a. m. to 6 p. m.? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory first. Yes, sir. 

Cross-interrogatory second. And during those hours and the months referred 
to by Judge Dieterich you had charge, had you not. of the placing of the 
outgoing mail? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory second. I did. 

Cross-interrogatory third. In handling the number of letters which would 
come to you you paid no attention to the addressee, but only to the place of 
destination? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory third. That’s all. 

Cross-interrogatory fourth. So you are not able to say whether reports from 
Mr. Shaw to the Clerk of the House of Representatives were ever received at 
the post office or not? 


56 


RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


Answer to cross-interrogatory fourth. I couldn't. 

Cross-interrogatory tiftli. You had no instructions on this subject and had 
nothing to call your attention to it? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory fifth. Nothing whatever. 

Mr. Mumford. That is all. 

The said GEORGE I. BUCK, being first duly sworn by me as a witness in said 
cause previous to the commencement of this examination to testify the truth, 
as well on the part of the contestant as the contestee, in relation to the matters 
in controversy between said contestant and contestee, so far as he should be 
interrogated, testified as follows: 

Direct examination by W. H. Deiterich : 

Interrogatory first. State your name. 

Answer to interrogatory first. George I. Buck. 

Interrogatory second. Where do you live? 

Answer to interrogatory second. Beardstown, Ill. 

Interrogatory third. How long have you lived in Beardstown? 

Answer to interrogatory third. All my life. 

Interrogatory fourth. What is your business? 

Answer to interrogatory fourth. Postal clerk. 

Interrogatory fifth. Employed at the Beardstown post office? 

Answer to interrogatory fifth. Yes, sir. 

Interrogatory sixth. When were your hours of employment? 

Answer to interrogatory sixth. Nine p. m. to 5 a. m. 

Interrogatory seventh. Were you assigned any particular dut’es in reference 
to the mail at the post office? 

Answer to interrogatory seventh. Dispatching and receiving all mail at night 
between those hours. 

Interrogatory eighth. You bad personal charge of that, did you? 

Answer to interrogatory e'glitli. Yes. 

Interrogatory ninth. D d you ever receive any instructions with reference 
to any mail delivered to the post office by Guy L. Shaw? 

Answer to interrogatory ninth. I did not. 

Interrogatory tenth. You know Guy L. Shaw, do you? 

Answer to interrogatory tenth. Yes. 

Interrogatory eleventh. Did you ever have your attention called to any 
letters del vered by Guy L. Shaw to the post office addressed to the Clerk of 
the House of Representatives at Washington. D. C.? 

Answer to interrogatory eleventh. I did not. 

Interrogatory twelfth. Do you know whether any letters were received at 
the post office from Guy I.. Shaw addressed to the Clerk of the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives? 

Answer to interrogatory twelfth. I do not. 

Interrogatory thirteenth. You knew Guy E. Shaw was a candidate for (Con¬ 
gress during that fall? 

Answer to interrogatory thirteenth. I did. 

Interrogatory fourteenth. Did you know during the months of September, 
October, November, and December, 1920, that it was required that a candidate 
for Congress file any kind of a statement with the Clerk of the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives? 

Answer to interrogatory fourteenth. I did not. 

Cross-examination by William Mumford: 

Cross-interrogatory first. Mr. Buck, you left the actual service at 5 o’clock 
a. m. of the office ? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory first. Yes. 

Cross-interrogatory second. And your successor came on at 9 o’clock a. m.? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory second. Yes. 

Cross-interrogatory third. Mr. Buck, between the hour you left and the hour 
Mr. Elliott came on, who, if any one, was in charge of the office? 

Answer to cross-nterrogatory tli'rd. Different ones; they changed off; one 
week one was iu charge and the next another. 

Cross- nterrogatory fourth. Between you and Mr. Elliott you mean? You 
mean you and Mr. Elliott took turns about? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory fourth. No; between the hours of 5 a. m. and 
9 a. m. there is no one at the office but the general delivery clerk, and the carriers 
come on at 7 a. m., but they have no charge of the out-going mail. 



RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


57 


Cross-interrogatory fifth. So that between 5 in the morning and 9 in the fore¬ 
noon there was no one at the office who had anything to do with the out-going 
mail? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory fifth. No. 

Cross-interrogatory sixth. Wouldn’t Dr. Schweer be there at that time? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory sixth. He came on at 7 o’clock too. 

Cross-interrogatory seventh. Of course, after Dr. Schweer came on at 7 and 
before Mr. Elliott came on at 9 it is true, I assume, that Dr. Schweer or any other 
person in the office would have or could have access to the letters that were de¬ 
posited for transmission? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory seventh. Y'es. 

Cross-interrogatory eighth. You have no knowledge as to whether the letters 
were placed in the post office or not? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory eighth. No. 

Cross-interrogatory ninth. Do you know, Mr. Buck, at what hours Mr. Shaw 
usually deposited his mail? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory ninth. No. 

Cross-interrogatory tenth. Is there just one box at the office in which ouf- 
go ng letters are deposited by patrons? 

Answer to cross-interrogatory tenth. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Mumford. I think that is all. 

Redirect examination by W. H. Dieterich : 

Redirect interrogatory first. Mr. Buck, how many employees were there in 
the post office working in any capacity during the months of September, October, 
November, and December, 1920? 

Answer to redirect interrogatory first. You mean the exact number of all of 
them ? 

Redirect interrogatory second. Not including rural or city route men. 

Answer to redirect interrogatory second. Just clerical? 

Redirect interrogatory third. Yes. 

Answer to redirect interrogatory third. Five. 

Redirect interrogatory fourth. Five besides you and Mr. Elliott? 

Answer to redirect interrogatory fourth. No; with us. 

Redirect interrogatory fifth. Does that include the postmaster? 

Answer to redirect interrogatory fifth. Well, lets see, there was Miss Fischer, 
Mr. Williams, Miss McClain. Mr. Elliott, and myself. 

Mr. Dieterich. That is all. 

It is stipulated and agreed by and between W. H. Dieterich. attorney for 
Henry T. Rainey, contestant, and William Mumford, attorney for Guy L. Shaw, 
contestee, that the testimony taken herein may be transcribed by the stenog¬ 
rapher and presented to the witnesses for signature upon the completion of the 
transcript. 

I, W. T. Gordley. a notary public, in and for the county of Cass and State of 
Illinois, selected to take the depositions of the said T. .T. Schweer. Joseph F. 
Elliott, and George I. Buck, witnesses whose names are subscribed to the fore¬ 
going depositions, do hereby certify that previous to the commencement of the 
examination of the said witnesses in a certain proceeding pending in the House 
of Representatives of the United States of America on contest of election of 
Guy L. Shaw for Representative in Congress for the twentieth congressional 
district of the State of Illinois, wherein Henry T. Rainey is contestant and 
Guy L. Shaw is contestee. the said T. J. Schweer, Joseph F. Elliott, and George 
I. Buck were duly sworn by me as such notary public to testify the truth in 
relation to the matters in controversy between said contestant and contestee 
so far as they should be interrogated concerning the same: that the said depo¬ 
sitions were taken by me at my office at 20iU State Street, in the city of Beards- 
town, county of Cass and State of Illinois, on the 16th day of April, A. D. 
1921; that I caused all oral interrogatories directed to be put to each of said 
witnesses, whether proposed by contestant or contestee, together with the 
answers of said witnesses thereto, to be reduced to writing in the order in 
which they were proposed and answered, as in said depositions set forth, and 
that thereupon said depositions were signed and sworn to before me as such 
notary public by said witnesses. 

[ seal. 1 W. T. Gordley. 

Notary Public in and for County of Cass and State of Illinois. 


58 


RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


Beardstown, III., April 9,1921. 

Guy L. Shaw, 

Beardstown, III. 

Sir: Take notice that on the 16th day of April, A. D. 1921. at the hour of 
2 p. m. at the law offices of W. T. Gordley, at 205^ State Street, in the city of 
Beardstown, county of Cass and State of Illinois, the deposition of Theodore 
J. Scliweer, Beardstown, Ill.; Joseph Elliot, Beardstown, Ill.; George I. Buck, 
Beardstown, Ill., in this cause will be taken before W. T. Gordley, Esq., 205i 
State Street, Beardstown, Ill., a notary public in and for the county of Cass 
and State of Illinois, under the provisions of section 107 of an act of January 
10, 1873, and section 2 of March 2, 1875, Revised Statutes. Taking of testimony 
will continue from day to day until completed. Please govern yourself accord¬ 
ingly. 

John F. McCarron, 

W. H. Dieterich. 

Attorneys for Henry T. Rainey, Contestant. 

Received copy of the within notice this 11th day of April, A. D. 1921. 

William Mumford, 
Attorney for Guy L. Shaw, Conte stee^ 


State of Illinois, County of Cass, ss: 

W. H. Dieterich, being duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he did 
on the 9th day of April, A. D. 1921, at Beardstown, Ill., deliver a copy of the 
attached notice to E. J. Howard, whom, this affiant is informed and believes 
to be secretary of Guy I.. Shaw; that he did on the same date mail a copy 
of said notice to William Mumford, the attorney for said Guy E. Shaw, at 
Pittsfield, Ill.; that he did on said last above date deposit a copy of said 
notice, postage prepaid and registered, to Guy L. Shaw, addressed Guy L. Slmw,. 
Member of Congress from Illinois, Washington, D. C. 

W. H. Dieterich.. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of April A. D. 1921. 

[seal.] W. T. Gordley, 

Rotary Public. 


Guy L. Shaw, 

Beardstown, lit. 


Beardstown, III., April 9. 1921. 


Sir: Take notice that on the 16tli day of April, A. D. 1921. at the hour of 2 
p. m., at the law offices of W. T. Gordley. at 2051 State Street, in the city of 
Beardstown, county of Cass and State of Illinois, the deposition of Theodore 
J. Scliweer. Beardstown, Ill.; Joseph Elliot, Beardstown, Ill.; George I. Buck, 
Beardstown, Ill., in this cause will be taken before W. T. Gordley, Esq., 2051 
State Street, Beardstown, Ill., a notary public in and for the county of Cass 
and State of Illinois, under the provisions of section 107 of an act of January 
10, 1878, and section 2 of March 2, 1875, Revised Statutes. Taking of testi¬ 
mony will continue from day to day until completed. Please govern yourself 
accordingly. 

John F. McCarron, 

W. H. I Ueterich, 

Attorneys for Henry T. Rainey, Contestant. 


[Post Office Department. Official business. Registered article No. 2297. Insured parcel.] 

Postmark of delivering office and date of delivery. Pittsfield, Ill., April 11, 
1921, 6 p. m. 

W. H. Dieterich, Beardstown, Ill. 


[ Reverse.] 
RETURN receipt. 

Received from the postmaster the registered or 
number of which appears on the face of this card. 

Date of delivery, April 11, 1921. 


insured article. 
William 


the original 
Mumford. 




RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


59 


[Post Office Department. Official business. Registered article No. 2295. Insured parcel.] 

Postmark of delivering office and date of delivery, Washington, D. C., April 
12, 1921, 6 p. m. 

W. H. Dieterich, Beardstown, Ill. 


[Reverse.] 
RETURN RECEIPT. 


Received from the postmaster the registered or insured article, the original 
number of which appears on the face of this card. 


Ilo I. Emmort. 


State of Illinois, 

Cass Count)/, ss: 

The people of the State of Illinois to Theodore J. Schweer, Joseph Elliott, and 
George I. Buck: 

You are hereby commanded to appear before me, a notary public in and for 
said county, at my office, No. 205+ State Street, in the city of Beardstown, in 
said county, on Saturday, the 16th day of April, A. D. 1921, at 2 o’clock p. m., 
and from day to day until the testimony is completed, then and there to testify 
the truth in a suit now pending in the House of Representatives of the United 
States wherein Henry T. Rainey is contestant and Guy L. Shaw is contestee in 
an election contest for the twentieth congressional district, and this you shall 
in no wise omit, under the penalty of the law. 

Given under my hand and notarial seal this 9tli day of February, A. D. 1921. 
[seal.] . W. T. Gordley, 

Notary Public. 

State of Illinois, 

County of Cass, ss: 

W. H. Dieterich, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he served 
the within subpoena by reading the same to and leaving a copy thereof with 
the within-named witnesses, Theodore J. Schweer, Joseph Elliott, and George I. 
Buck, on the 9th day of April, A. D. 1921. 

W. H. Dieterich. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9tli day of April, A. D. 1921. 

[seal.] W. T. Gordley, 

Notary Public. 



INDEX. 


Page» 

Notice of contest___ 3 

Proof of service_ 4 

Answer of contestee to notice of contest_ 4-5 

Appearances for contestant: 

Dieterich, W. H_19, 37, 51 

McCarron, John P_ 5 

Rainey, Henry T_5,19,37 

Appearances for contestee: 

Shaw, Guy L_5,19, 37 

Mumford, William_5,19, 37, 51 

Communication from Hon. Henry T. Rainey to William and Barry Mum- 

ford _ 51 

Notary public’s subpoenas_ 5, 59 

Notary’s certificate_16, 51, 57, 59 

Note by Clerk of House relating to omission of testimony from printed 

Record_ 18 

Notices to take depositions_ 58 

Officers before whom depositions were taken : 

Gebhardt, Charles E_ 5 

Gordley, W. T_ 51 

Maney, D. M_ 19 

Post-office registry receipts_,_58-59 

Stipulation_47,57 

Testimony for contestant_5-16, 51-57 

Testimony for contestee_19-47 

Witnesses for contestant: 

Meeker, T. C_15-16 

Page, William Tyler_10-14,15 

Rainey, Henry T_5-10,14 

Witnesses for contestee: 

Haywood, J. E_45-46 

Hunter, E. T_44-45 

Morton, G. W_42-44 

Phelps, Roy L_=-,- 41 

Shaw, Guy L2_19-41 

Spicker, Dick_ 46 

Witnesses for contestant in rebuttal: 

Buck, George I_56-57 

Elliott, Joseph_55-56 

Schweer, T. J_52-55 

EXHIBITS. 

Contestant’s Exhibit A.—Letter from Henry T. Rainey to Guy I.. Shaw, 

inclosing two copies of notice to contest election- 17 

Contestant’s Exhibit B.—Post office registry receipts- 17 

Contestant’s Exhibit C.—Notice of contest, omitted in printing- 17 

Contestant’s Exhibit D.—Letter from Secretary of State to Henry T. 
Rainey advising completion by State canvassing board of votes cast 

at general election- 17 

Contestant’s Exhibit E.—Proof of service of notice upon the wife of 
Guy L. Shaw to take testimony February 23, 1921, at the office of 

Clerk of the United States House of Representatives- 18 

Contestant’s Exhibit F.—Form letter from chairmap national Republican 

congressional committee- 18 


61 











































62 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Contestant’s Exhibits F2 and F3.—Publicity statements for filing before 

general election and after general election, omitted in printing- 18 

Contestee’s Exhibit No. 1.—Notice to take depositions_ 47 

Contestee’s Exhibit No. 2.—Post-office registry receipt- 47 

Contestee’s Exhibit No. 3.—Notice to take depositions- 48 

Contestee’s Exhibit No. 4.—Notary public’s subpoena- 48 

Contestee’s Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6.—Notices to take depositions- 49 

Contestee’s Exhibit No. 7.—Copy of letter regarding taking of testimony 

at Beardstown, Ill., February 25, 1921___ 50 

Contestee’s Exhibit No. 8.—Letter from Clerk of House of Representa¬ 
tives to Hon. Guy L. Shaw, omitted in printing- 50 

Contestee’s Exhibit No. 9a.—Primary expenses prior to September 5, 1920, 
and prior to September 30, 1920, and after September 30, 1920, omitted 

in printing- 50 

Contestee’s Exhibits Nos. 9b and 9c.—Publicity statements for filing 
before general election and for filing after general election, omitted in 

printing --- 50 

Contestee’s Exhibit No. 10.—Answer to notice of contest, omitted in 

printing - 50 

Contestee’s Exhibit No. 11.—Certification of citizens of Beardstown, Ill., 

as to auditing campaign receipts and expenditures of Hon. Guy L. Shaw_ 50 
Contestee’s Exhibits Nos. 12a and 12b.—Bank-deposit receipts from 
Ridgely Farmers State Bank_50-51 













































' 




























































































































































































































































BEFORE THE 


House of Representatives. 

67TH CONGRESS. 


CONTESTED ELECTION CASE 

OF 

HENRY T. RAINEY 
vs. 

GUY L. SHAW. 

FROM THE TWENTIETH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 


STATEMENT, BRIEF, AND ARGUMENT FOR 
CONTESTANT. 


JOHN F. McCARRON, 

W. H. DIETERICH, 

Attorneys for Contestant. 


Judd & Detweiler (Inc.), Printers, Washington, D. C. 







I 



BEFORE THE 


4 


1*3 



House of Representatives. 

67th CONGRESS. 


Henry T. Rainey, Contestant , 
vs. 

Guy L. Shaw, Conte&tee. 


Statement. 

On December 16, 1920, Henry T. Rainey, the contest¬ 
ant, addressed a “Notice of contest” to the contestee, Guy 
L. Shaw, at Beardstown, Illinois, in which “Notice of con¬ 
test” is contained eleven specifications or grounds of contest 
by the contestant. Under date of December 19, 1920, 
W. H. Dieterich, one of contestant’s attorneys, served said 
“Notice of contest” upon the contestee, Guy L. Shaw, by 
delivering to him a true copy of same. Said “Notice of 
contest” complied in all respects with Revised Statutes of 
the United States, Title 11, chapter 8, section 105. 

The contestant, Henry T. Rainey, not having been served 
with any answer from contestee within thirty days after 
the service of “Notice of contest,” as is required by section 
106 of the Revised Statutes, Title 11, chapter 8, did, on 




2 


February 14, 1921, through his attorneys, John F. McCar- 
ron and W. H. Dieterich, give notice* of the taking of deposi¬ 
tions on behalf of contestant at the office of the clerk of 
the House of Representatives, at the Capitol building, 
Washington, D. C., and that a copy of said notice was de¬ 
livered to Mrs. Bessie D. Shaw, the wife of contestee, at 
Beardstown, Illinois, by W. H. Dieterich, one of contestant’s 
attorneys, on February 16, 1921, as the said Dieterich was 
unable upon diligent search to find the said Guy L. Shaw; 
that on the 23d day of February, 1921, the depositions of 
Hon. Henry T. Rainey, contestant, Hon. William Tyler 
Page, clerk of the House of Representatives, and Mr. T. C. 
Meeker, chief clerk of the National Republican Congres¬ 
sional Committee, were taken at the office of the clerk of 
the House of Representatives. Contestant was present and 
was represented by one of his attorneys, John F. McCarron, 
Esquire. Contestee, Guy L. Shaw, was present and was rep¬ 
resented by one of his attorneys, William Mumford, Esquire. 

Under date of February 19, 1921, contestant, Henry T. 
Rainey, by his attorney, W. H. Dieterich, served notice of 
the taking of depositions of certain persons at Beardstown, 
Illinois, on February 25, 1921, which was served upon 
Guy L. Shaw, contestee, and who in a letter to W. H. Diete¬ 
rich, one of contestant’s attorneys, dated February 19, 1921, 
stated that he could not be present as he was going to Wash¬ 
ington for the taking of depositions on February 23, 1921. 
Thq depositions of the following persons were taken at 
Beardstown, Illinois, on February 25, 1921: 

Ledrue D. Schaeffer, Roland G. Crum, Clifford Garm, 
Floyd M. Condit, A. E. Schmoldt, E. T. Hunter. 

Notice was also served upon Mr. Shaw, contestee, that 


3 


depositions would be taken at Springfield, Illinois, on Feb¬ 
ruary 25, 1921, and the depositions of the following persons 
were taken: 

Edward D. Keys, Esther Hanley. 

Mr. Shaw was not present at either Beardstown or Spring- 
field on February 25, 1921, nor was he represented by one 
of his attorneys at either place. 

The testimony taken by contestant at Beardstown and 
Springfield, Illinois, on February 25, 1921, was not printed 
by the clerk of the House of Representatives on account of 
disagreement between contestant and contestee. 

The contestee, by his attorneys, William and Barry 
Mumford, served upon contestant, Henry T. Rainey, and 
his attorneys, John F. McCarron and W. H. Dieterich, 
notice that on April 2, 1921, depositions of certain persons 
would be taken by contestee at Beardstown, Illinois. The 
depositions were taken of the following persons: 

“Hon. Guy L. Shaw, contestee; E. T. Hunter, Dick 
Spicker, G. W. Morton, J. E. Haywood, Roy L. Phelps.” 

The contestee was present and was represented at said 
hearing by one of his attorneys, William Mumford. Con¬ 
testant was also present and was represented by one of his 
attorneys, W. H. Dieterich. 

Upon objection by attorney for contestant as being totally 
irrelevant and sustained by the clerk of the House, con- 
testee’s Exhibits 8, 9 a, 9 b, and 9c were omitted from the 
printed record. 

Contestant, under date of April 9, 1921, served notice 
upon contestee, through his attorneys, that further deposi¬ 
tions would be taken by contestant at Beardstown, Illinois, 


4 


on April 16, 1921. The depositions were taken on said 
date of April 16, 1921, of the following persons: 

“Theodore J. Schweer, Joseph Elliot, George I. Buck.’ 7 

Contestant was present and was represented by one of his 
attorneys, W. H. Dieterich. The contestee was also present 
and represented by one of his attorneys, William Mumford. 

BRIEF AND ARGUMENT. 

The question for determination by the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives in this case is based upon the testimony adduced 
that is found in the record and the constitutional privilege 
conferred upon the House of Representatives to determine 
the qualifications of its members. 

It is the contention of contestant that the contestee, Guy L. 
Shaw, as shown by the evidence, does not possess the requisite 
qualifications as required by a member of the House of 
Representatives, and that therefore he is not entitled to a seat 
in the House of Representatives from the 20th Congressional 
District of Illinois. As the basis for the aforesaid statement 
we submit that the evidence proves the following: 

1. 

Contestee Did Not Answer Contestant’s Notice of Con¬ 
test Within the Time Required by Statute. 

The record shows (Record, page 3) that contestant's 
“Notice of contest" is dated December 16, 1920, and that said 
“Notice of contest" was served upon the contestee, Guy L. 
Shaw, December 19, 1920 (Record, page 4), and that what 




5 


purports to be an answer to contestant’s “Notice of contest” 
is dated February 23, 1921 (Record, page 4). 

It will be observed that contestee’s purported answer of 
February 23, 1921, is no answer at all, as it in no respect 
complies with Revised Statutes 106, Title 11, chapter 8, as 
follows: 


“Any member upon whom the notice mentioned in 
the preceding section may be served shall, within 
thirty days after the service thereof, answer such 
notice, admitting or denying the facts alleged therein, 
and stating specifically any other grounds upon which 
he rests the validity of his election and shall serve a 
copy of his answer upon the contestant.” 

Under cross-examination, the contestee, Mr. Shaw, testi¬ 
fied as to why he did not file his answer within the required 
time as provided by law as follows: 

“Q. I believe you stated you were familiar with 
the law requiring all these statements when you filed 
your primary statement; is that correct? 

A. Yes, sir; I think so. 

Q. You were familiar with it when you filed the 
other statements. You say you filed your notice of 
answer in this matter? 

A. I do not recall the date, but the date of taking 
of testimony in Washington. 

Q. When was the notice of contest filed or served 
on you? 

A. I don’t remember that; the data here will show. 

Q. To refresh your memory, wasn’t it the 20th of 
December? 

A. I think that was about the time. 

Q. Did you file any answer to that notice? 

A. Yes, sir. 


Q. When? 

A. I refer to the notice just mentioned; I do not 
recall the date. 

Q. The one you say was dated Washington, Feb¬ 
ruary 23, 1921, Contestee’s Exhibit No. 10? 

A. This is the notice I have reference to. 

Q. This is the only answer you have filed; is that 
correct? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You never filed any answer other than this and 
deposited it in the post office? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Well, had you read the Federal statutes with 
reference to contests of election? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You had? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you know it was necessary to tile an answer 
to the contest? 

A. I was confused on that point, and thought the 
answer, the other information that I had filed, was 
sufficient answer. 

Q. Who advised you on that? 

A. I don’t think I advised with any lawyer; I was 
away from my own attorney at that time. 

Q. You mean to say you consulted the statutes 
yourself? 

A. I didn’t consult the statutes, but certain por¬ 
tions of the statutes. 

Q, You consulted the statutes in reference to con¬ 
tests of election, did you? 

A. Partially so. 

Q. And you never filed the answer to it before 
February 23, and that was the day they were taking 
depositions; is that correct? 

A. Yes, sir; I think so. 


7 


Q, Up to that time you had neither affirmed nor 
denied the allegations in the notice of contest? 

A. I stated that in taking the matter up after get¬ 
ting to Washington I was under the impression that 
the filing of the reports, such as I did file, was suffi¬ 
cient answer. 

Q. Will you give me an answer to this question: 
Up to February 23, 1921, so far as any answer being 
filed by you or any denial being filed by you, there 
had been none? 

A. That is correct. 

Q. You say the $1,100 deposited in the bank at 
Springfield was not received from campaign contribu¬ 
tions? 

A. It was not. 

Q. Just one question. Mr. Shaw, do I clearly un¬ 
derstand you as saying that you were under the im¬ 
pression that the reports of receipts and expendi¬ 
tures which you handed to the clerk of the House 
on the 31st of January, 1921, was a sufficient answer 
to the notice of contest until I advised you to the 
contrary ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the notice of contest was served on you on 
the 20th of December; is that correct? 

A. I think that is about the date. 

Q. And you knew the law required that an answer 
be filed within 30 days, did you not? 

A. I knew something about it. 

Q. Notwithstanding, neither one of these—neither 
what you filed with the clerk of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives nor the answer denying here, was filed 
within 30 days? 

A. The records will show. 

Mr. Mumford: That is probably correct. 

Mr. Dieterich: The statements were not filed until 


8 


the 31st day of January and the other until the 23d 
day of February; is that correct? 

The Witness: I think that is about true. 

Q. And your answer to Mr. Mumford was that you 
thought the statements filed on the 31st day of Jan¬ 
uary, were in compliance with the law? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dieterich: That is all. 

Mr. Mumford: That is all.” 

(Record, pages 39 and 40.) 

In the reading of the aforesaid testimony not one good 
and sufficient reason is given by contestee as to why he did 
not file his answer within thirty days from the date of “No¬ 
tice of contest,” as required by law, what deduction therefore 
must be drawn by the committee from the statement of con¬ 
testee that: 

“Q. Up to that time you had neither affirmed nor 
denied the allegations in the notice of contest? 

A. I stated that in taking the matter up after get¬ 
ting to Washington I was under the impression that 
the filing of the reports, such as I did file, was suffi¬ 
cient answer.” 

(Record, page 40.) 

when the contestee had had before him from December 19, 
1921, “Notice of contest” from contestant containing eleven 
specifications as to contesting his election, and that on Jan¬ 
uary 31, 1921, contestee filed an affidavit with copies of what 
he claims were his campaign statements of expenditures and 
then says that: 

“I stated that in taking the matter up after getting 
to Washington I was under the impression that the 


9 


filing of the reports, such as I did file, was sufficient 
answer.” 

(Record, page 40.) 

And yet, having made the aforesaid statement, he previously 
stated: 

“Q. Well, had you read the Federal statutes with 
reference to contests of election? 

A. Yes, sir.” 

(Record, page 40.) 

Surely contestee cannot plead ignorance of the statutes 
governing contests of election in view of the aforesaid state¬ 
ment. It is apparent that contestee was aware of the statute 
requiring that he answer contestant’s “Notice of contest,” 
and that he did not comply with the statute. 

2 . 

Filing of Statements of Campaign Expenditures. 

The first four specifications of the “Notice of contest” 
charge the contestee with failing to file with the clerk of the 
House of Representatives a statement of campaign expenses 
before and after the 1920 Illinois primary and before and 
after the election of 1920. Since the filing of “Notice of 
contest” the Supreme Court of the United States has ren¬ 
dered a decision that the corrupt-practices act is void (New¬ 
berry et al. vs. The United States, decided May 2, 1921). 
It is quite significant that the court has, however, stated in 
that opinion: 

“As 'Each House shall be the judge of the elections, 
qualifications, and returns of its own members,’ and 


10 


as Congress may by law regulate the times, places, 
and manner of holding elections, the national Gov¬ 
ernment is not without power to protect itself against 
corruption, fraud, or other malign influences.” 

While the corrupt-practices act has been declared void, yet 
it is within the power of the House of Representatives to 
look into the question of the filing of campaign statements 
in determining the qualifications of its members. While the 
Supreme Court of the United States has held that Congress 
has no power over primary elections, it does hold that Con¬ 
gress can by law regulate the times, places, and manner of 
holding elections, and we therefore contend that it is proper 
for the House of Representatives to inquire into the filing 
of such statements before and after an election. 

It will be observed that the record in this case shows the 
following as to contestee’s filing of campaign statements. 

Excerpt of Testimony of Hon. Wm. Tyler Page, Clerk of 
the House. 

“Q. Then I understand, Mr. Page, that there is no 
record in your office that Mr. Guy L. Shaw filed a 
statement of his campaign expenses before the pri¬ 
mary held in Illinois on September 15, 1920, at least 
10 days and not more than 15 days before said 
primary ? 

A. I have stated that. 

Q. And that he did not file at any time before or 
after said primary on the 15th day of September, 
1920, any campaign statement? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. And that he did not file not less than 10 days 
nor more than 15 days before the date of the general 
election on November 2, 1920, a statement of his cam¬ 
paign expenses? 



11 


A. No, sir. 

Q That he did not file within 30 days after the 
general election held November 2, 1920, a statement 
of his campaign expenses as required by law? 

A. No, sir.” 

(Record, page 11.) 

Upon cross-examination Mr. Shaw testified as follows: 

“Q. You say you filed statements with the clerk 
of the House of Representatives at Washington? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you file those statements? 

A. The dates are shown in this receipt which we 
have had before us awhile ago. 

Q. This receipt of January 31, 1921? 

A. That was the date that the reports referred to in 
the receipt were filed. 

Q. Yes, that is the day you filed the statements; is 
that correct? 

A. The statements referred to in the receipt. 

Q. I do not understand the receipt, Mr. Shaw. It 
says: ‘That is to acknowledge receipt today from your 
hands of your affidavits and expenses mentioned 
therein, concerning receipts and expenditures inci¬ 
dent to your nomination and election as Representa¬ 
tive to the Sixty-seventh Congress from the twentieth 
congressional district of the State of Illinois, which 
will be duly filed in this office as required by the 
Federal campaign contribution law.’ Where are the 
affidavits referred to in this receipt? 

A. On file in Washington.” 

(Record, page 25.) 

“Q. Was this—I will ask you whether this direc¬ 
tion was on the blank that you say you mailed in the 
post office: ‘To be filed with the clerk of the House 
of .Representatives, Washington, D. C., not less than 


12 


10 nor more than 15 days before the date of general 
election. The depositing of this statement in a legal 
post office, directed to the clerk of the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives, duly stamped and registered, within the 
time above named is a sufficient filing of this state¬ 
ment.’ You know that that statement was upon your 
blank ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You understood it had to be filed with the clerk 
of the House of Representatives? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And mailed it because the blank contained the 
directions on it, wasn’t that true? 

A. I presume I was trying to follow the directions. 

Q. Why didn’t you register it? 

A. Because I didn’t think that reads it is necessary 
to register it. 

Q. That is your explanation, that you didn’t think 
it reads it is necessary. If it had read that, you would 
have registered it, wouldn’t you? 

A. I would have made some effort to register it. 

Q. Do you know whether you made an affidavit 
before any official in Beardstown as to that? 

A. I don’t recall; no. I have affidavits made out 
every once in a while, and I wouldn’t say whether I 
did or did not. 

Q. But you are not able at this time to recall the 
officer before whom you made the affidavit to the 
original of what you say contestee’s Exhibit 9 b is a 
true copy? 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Are you ready to say you made affidavit to it? 

A. I think I am. 

Q. Where? 

A. I don’t think I remember where. 

Q. Did you remember the act of making an affida- 
vit to that, or swear to that? 



13 


A. I think the last two reports were sworn to—the 
first two reports sent in. 

Q. You took this to the post office yourself, did 
you? 

A. That is my remembrance.” 

(Record, page 33.) 

“Q. When did you file it there? 

A. I refer you to the receipt. 

Q. On January 31, 1921? 

A. I think that was the date. 

Q. Well, do you—is that the first time you filed 
a statement of your expenditures as shown by con- 
testee’s Exhibit 9c with the clerk of the House of 
Representatives? 

A. I want to be sure that I understand you, Judge. 

Q. I mean the statement you filed with the clerk 
of the House of Representatives on January 31, 1921, 
is that the first statement covering your expenditures 
between those periods that you filed with the clerk? 

A. That was the first report filed in person with the 
clerk.” 

(Record, page 34.) 

On redirect examination Mr. Shaw testified : 

“Q. The 2d of December, 1920? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, you did not go to Washington until about 
what time? In January? 

A. I don’t think I recall, but I think the latter 
part of the month, perhaps the middle. 

Q. About how long had you been in Washington 
before you deposited with the clerk of the House, in 
person, these reports which were left there on the 
31st of Jainuary? 

A. I can’t say, but it was the length of time re- 


14 


quired to write home for data concerning campaign 
expenses and have it sent to me and received in Wash¬ 
ington. 

Q. You had received a notice of contest from Mr. 
Rainey, had you not, dated December 16, 1920? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And in that notice you were informed for the 
first time that your reports were not on file in the 
clerk’s office? 

A. That was the first notice I had. 

Q. Then, very soon after that time did you go 
on tOv hunt, and plan and file these reports you 
speak of? 

A. Yes, sir.” 

(Record, page 39.) 

It will be observed that the clerk of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives states that no campaign statements were received 
from Mr. Shaw within the time required. Mr. Shaw states 
that he mailed the statements to the clerk of the House, 
and yet it does not seem possible that all of Mr. Shaw’s 
communications would fail to reach the clerk of the House. 
Mr. Shaw does not bring any proof to bear whatsoever of 
having filed the statements. He contents himself with fil¬ 
ing an affidavit and certain papers that purport to be copies 
of statements he forwarded to the clerk of the House. We 
submit that the weight of evidence as adduced is strongly 
against Mr. Shaw, and that no campaign statements were 
filed by him with the clerk of the House within the time 
required. 

In Grace vs. Whaley, at page 72, in Merrill Morre’s “A 
historical and legal digest of all the contested election cases, 
etc.,” the committee said: 


15 


“The publicity act should not be treated lightly. 
It is a most wholesome law. Its provisions should 
not be compromised. Any member who has violated 
its provisions should be promptly expelled from his 
seat in this body.” 

Specifications Five and Six. 

It will be observed that specifications five and six are in¬ 
terwoven with specifications one, two, three, and four. 
There is an item that should receive consideration from the 
committee. It is to be found on page 35 of the record as 
follows: 


“Q. I notice an item here to campaign worker, No¬ 
vember 11, $200. 

A. That was cash. 

Q. Those checks are all checks on the Ridgely 
Farmers State Bank; is that correct? 

A. I think they are; I didn’t notice definitely and 
specifically. 

Q. Who was the campaign worker that you paid 
$200 to on November 11? 

Mr. Mumford: I want to object to the question, for 
the reason that, for political considerations, it doesn’t 
seem to me advisable that this witness should answer 
that question. If the committee insists on his dis¬ 
closing the name of the person to whom he paid he 
will do so, but I feel he should not do that, for 
political and personal reasons.” 

(Record, page 35.) 

It is respectfully requested that the name of the “campaign 
worker” to whom was paid the $200 should be furnished in 
order to be able to investigate and to determine whether the 
money was properly expended or not. 


16 


Conclusion. 

We submit that the weight of the testimony shows that 
Guy L. Shaw, the contestee, is not entitled to a seat in the 
House of Representatives, and that Henry T. Rainey is en¬ 
titled to the seat from the 20th Congressional District of 
Illinois. 

Very respectfully, 

JOHN F. McCARRON, 

W. H. DIETERICH, 

Attorneys for Contestant. 


(4099) 



BEFOEE THE 


House of Representatives 


67TH CONGRESS 


CONTESTED ELECTION CASE 

OF 

Heney T. Rainey, 

YS. 

Guy L. Shaw. 


FEOM THE TWENTIETH CONGEESSION AL DISTEICT OF ILLINOIS. 


STATEMENT, BRIEF AND ARGUMENT FOR 
CONTESTEE. 


William Mumfoed, 

<1 

Attorney for Contestee. 


,Kfi 










BEFORE THE 


House of Representatives 

67TH CONGRESS 

Henry T. Rainey, Contestant, 
vs. 

Guy L. Shaw, Contestee. 

STATEMENT. 

A purported abstract of testimony was filed by Contes¬ 
tant in this case, but it does not abstract any of the evi¬ 
dence offered, nor does it even refer to any of the evi¬ 
dence for the Contestee. Therefore it was found neces¬ 
sary by Contestee to prepare and file an amended abstract 
of tstimony in order that the committee might be relieved 
from the laborious task of going through the record. 

At a general election held in the 20th Congressional 
District of Illinois, on November 6, 1920, Guy L. Shaw, 
Contestee was the regular Republican nominee for Con¬ 
gress and Henry T. Rainey, Contestant, was the regular 
Democratic nominee for the same office. 

The result of the canvass showed the election of Shaw, 
Republican, over Rainey, Democrat by a majority of 







9 


about 4,000 votes, in a District composed of ten Counties, 
each one of which was normally overwhelmingly Demo¬ 
cratic. The Contestee carried eight of the ten Counties 
in the District. 

Both of these condidates made a spirited campaign and 
Mr. Shaw especially made a very thorough canvass of the 
District, distributing, lithographs, circular letters, fold¬ 
ers, and making speaking tours in many of the Counties. 
In addition to his own personal efforts, a great many 
friends of Mr. Shaw threw themselves actively and earn¬ 
estly into his campaign, rendering their services without 
charge to their candidate. 

Mr. Shaw, the Contestee is a young man entirely with¬ 
out political experience and has devoted practically his 
life to agricultural improvement and allied matters. He 
is not a man of fortune and for that reason was unable 
to indulge in that lavish expenditure of money which 
very often characterizes our local elections. The Contes¬ 
tee used between $900 and $1,000 of his own money in 
his campaign, and this, in addition to two donations of 
$1,000 each from the National Committee constituted all 
of the funds which were at Mr. Shaw’s disposal during 
his campaign. No other contributions were received by 



3 


him from any other sources as the record in this case 
shows. 

Soon after the election certain unknown and dis¬ 
gruntled persons started untrue and very unfair reports 
concerning Mr. Shaw’s handling and disposition of his 
campaign funds. These false reports were so perniciously 
circulated throughout the District that the Contestee 
deemed it necessary to discredit them by some sort of ap¬ 
propriate action. He therefore called upon nine of the 
most eminent professional and business men of his com¬ 
munity to audit his accounts of campaign receipts and 
expenditures. This they did, (Contestee’s Exhibit No. 
11), and made a report of their investigation completely 
exonerating Mr. Shaw from any charge of misappropri¬ 
ation of campaign moneys, and reporting that all expendi¬ 
tures made by him were for legitimate campaign ex¬ 
penses. 

In the meantime Contestee had, at appropriate times, 
prepared certain reports of his ante and post primary and 
election campaign receipts and expenditures, and had 
deposited them (not registered) in the postoffice at 
Beardstown, Illinois, stamped and addressed to the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives, in accordance with the 
Act of Congress. No further consideration was given 


4 


these reports by Mr. Shaw until the 19th day of Decem¬ 
ber, 1920. On this date Judge Dieterich, one of the at¬ 
torneys for the Contestant, served on Contestee a pur¬ 
ported notice of a contest of election consisting of eleven 
specifications in all. (Abst. p. 1). By specifications 1, 
2, 3 and 4, the contestee was, for the first time informed 
that his reports of receipts and expenditures were not on 
file in the office of the Clerk of the House, (Abst. p. 1-2). 
Going to Washington a few days later, Mr. Shaw found 
that in fact his reports had not been received. He im¬ 
mediately set about the preparation of new reports which 
he filed with the Clerk of the House, together with his 
affidavit explaining absence of reports, on January 31, 
1921. Abst. p. 13). These reports were accepted and 
filed by the Clerk of the House, Abst. p. 14). 

Later and after Mr. Shaw had returned to Beardstown 
from Washington, he received notice of the taking of de¬ 
positions for the Contestant in Washington on the 23d 
day of February. The day before Shaw started to Wash¬ 
ington with his attorney, William Mumforcl, to attend the 
taking of these depositions, the Contestee received an¬ 
other notice of taking depositions for the Contestant in 
Beardstown on the 25th, two days after the Washington 
depositions were set for. Mr. Shaw felt that it was neces- 



5 


sary for him to be in Washington on the 23d and was 
so advised by his attorney. Realizing that it was a physi¬ 
cal impossibility for him and his attorney to be present 
at these two remote places within two days time, the Con- 
testee wrote a letter to Judge Dieterich, advising him that 
it was a physical impossibility to be at Beardstown on 
the 25th of February and further telling the Judge that 
if any depositions were taken there on the 25th in the 
absence of the Contestee and his attorney that a motion 
would be made at the appropriate time to suppress the 
depositions. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Shaw had not filed his answer to the 
Notice of Contest. He had received the erroneous im¬ 
pression that the filing of his reports of expenses and ex¬ 
penditures on the 31st of January with the Clerk of the 
House was a sufficient compliance with the requirements 
of an answer. Upon being advised that an answer must 
be filed to the notice of contest, an answer was prepared 
and handed to the Contestant in person on the 23d day 
of February, 1921, although this answer was served out 
of time it was accepted by the Contestant without any 
objection and before any testimony had been taken in this 


case. 


6 


At this time it is proper to refer to another matter of 
the taking of depositions for contestant which is entirely 
irregular. Contestee found that certain depositions had 
\been taken in Springfield, Illinois, for Contestant, but no 
notice of any kind of the taking of these depositions was 
ever served on Contestee or his attorney, and contestee 
had no knowldge that the testimony was taken until long 
afterward. 

When the Washington depositions were taken it was 
disclosed by the testimony of the Contestant himself, that 
he was conducting a 4 ‘ fishing expedition ’’ rather than an 
election contest. In other words, the Contestant admitted 
that he had no more substantial grounds upon which to 
base his specifications numbered one to eleven inclusive, 
than pure hearsay and rumor, (Abst. p. 11), the same 
rumors, no doubt, that had prompted Mr. Shaw to have 
an auditing board pass on his campaign accounts. 

And in reply to a question on cross-examination as to 
whether or not there was any evidence of any corrupt 
use of money at the election, Mr. Rainey replied, * ‘ There 
was none.” 

On the 2nd day of April, 1921, upon proper notice, cer¬ 
tain depositions were taken on behalf of the Contestee in 




7 


Beardstown, Illinois. This testimony showed conclusive¬ 
ly that contestee had received no contributions to his cam¬ 
paign other than a contribution of $1,000 made to him on 
the 13th of October, 1920 by the National Committee, and 
another contribution of $1,000 made to him by the same 
committee on the 26th of October. No contributions were 
made by the County Central Committees, the State Cen¬ 
tral Committee or by any other committee than the Na¬ 
tional Committee. In fact the testimony showed that 
no money besides this $2,000 was received by Shaw from 
' any source, except the $900 or $1,000 of his own personal 
funds which he used. The testimony further showed that 
each and every dollar of this money received by Shaw as 
well as the personal funds was actually expended and was 
used for legitimate campaign expenses. 

In short, the record in this case shows an absolute fail¬ 
ure to establish any of the specifications or charges made 
by Contestant, and shows conclusively that all moneys 
expended by Contestee were used for legitimate campaign 
expenses. 


8 


BRIEF. 

I. 

Election Committee. 

Powers and Jurisdiction. 

Committee will consider only whether a member was 
duly elected, properly returned and possessed of all 
qualifications prescribed by the Constitution. Questions 
of personal unfitness, etc., are to be considered only in 
proceedings looking toward expulsion. 

Maxwell vs. Cannon, 43d Cong. Smith 188. 

Stare decisis should be the rule with the Elections 
Committee. 

Cannon vs. Campbell, 47th Cong. 2 Ells. 653. 

If a member has been sworn in and his case referred 
to the Elections Committee on a Contest, the Committee 
“will consider no questions except whether he was duly 
elected, properly returned and possessed of all the quali¬ 
fications prescribed by the Constitution. 

If it be said that he is ineligible or not entitled to 
membership for other reasons, “it is a matter to be con¬ 
sidered in proceedings looking toward expulsion, and be- 


9 


yond the jurisdiction of the Committee on Elections ex¬ 
cept by special reference. 

Rowell, page 658. 

II. 

Burden of Proof on Contestant. 

Whoever seeks to oust a member who has been elected 
at the polls, must accomplish it by proving a case. The 
difficulties in his path can form no possible reason why 
the committee should meet him half way. The rule of 
reason requires that he should fully make out his case 
even though it involve the proof of a negative. 

New Jersey Case, 26th Cong. 1 Bart. 26. 

III. 

Testimony. 

(A) Depositions. 

Where depositions are taken at such times and places 
as to render it physically impossible for the sitting mem¬ 
ber to attend, testimony being even in some cases taken 
in two remote points at the same time the evidence was 
rejected by the Committee. 

Rowell’s Digest, p. 695, Id. p. 97. 


10 


(B) Hearsay Evidence. 

Secondary hearsay evidence is inadmissible and will 
not be considered by the Committee. 

Whatley vs. Cobb, 53d Cong. Report 267 p. 2; 

Ingersoll vs. Naylor, 26tli Cong. Bart. 34. 

IV. 

Pleadings. 

Time at which pleadings in contested election cases 
should be tiled, is merely directory, for no statute can 
defeat the Constitutional right of the House “to judge 
of the qualifications and election of its own members.” 

McLean vs. Bowman; 

Merrill Moore’s Digest, p. 54. 

(A) Notice of Contest. 

Must be specific and put Contestee on notice. 

A petition against the election of any person returned 
as a member of the House of Representatives ought to 
state the ground on which the election is contested with 
such certainty as to give reasonable notice thereof to 
the sitting member and to enable the House to judge 
whether the same be verified by proof, and if proved, 
whether it' be sufficient to vacate the seat. 

Leib, 9th Cong. C. & H., 165. 




11 


(B) Answer. 

Belay in filing answer not fatal. 

Where the answer to the notice of contest was one or 
two days late, it was held that the question was not 
whether the answer was filed in time, but which of the 
two claimants was really elected. 

Moore vs. Funston, 53d Cong. Report 1164, p. 2. 

Failure to answer does not confess election of Con¬ 
testant. 

Rowell, p. 783. 

(C) Statute covering filing of pleadings in contest 
cases is drectory. 

The statute requiring Contestant’s notice to he served 
within thirty days i ‘is, in fact, merely directory”. More¬ 
over, no statute can defeat the constitutional right of the 
House “to judge of the qualifications and election of its 
own members”. 

Here the contestant’s notice of contest was filed 
thirty-two days after the expiration of the time for in¬ 
stituting a contest; but the case was considered and de¬ 
termined in favor of the Contestant. 

McLean vs. Bowman. Merrill Moore’s Dig. p. 54. 


12 


Statutes directing the mode of proceeding of public 
officers are directory merely, unless there is something in 
the statute itself, which clearly shows a different intent. 

Smith vs. Jackson 51st Cong. Rowell 23. 

V. 

Reports of Receipts and Expenditures. 

(A) Failure to file reports of campaign receipts and 
expenditures will not be considered fatal where it does 
not appear that such failure was wilful or on account of 
ulterior purposes. 

And in this case where there was a total failure to file 
any report at all of campaign receipts and expenditures 
the Committee held,— 

“The delinquency of Contestant lies solely in his fail¬ 
ure to comply with the law within the time required.” 
While the House must retain the right, etc., “in this in¬ 
stance, the failure to comply with the law, as has been 
disclosed, carries with it nothing of opprobium, and your 
committee cannot recommend that Contestant be denied 
his seat on account of his failure to comply with the 
technical provisions of the law.” 

MacDonald vs. Young, Michigan; 

Merrill Morre’s Dig. p. 63- (1913). 



13 


(B) To hold that an inadvertent failure to report cer¬ 
tain items of receipts renders the Contestee ‘ ‘ ineligible ’’ 
would be “an inexcusable misconception of the real ob¬ 
ject of the Corrupt Practices Act,”—and would also 
make a “dangerous precedent,” etc. 

Gaylord vs. Cary, Wisconsin; 

Merrill Moore’s Dig. p. 91. 

VI. 

This proceeding is in effect, a motion to expel and not 
a contest. 

(A) Ineligibility of Shaw to hold his seat would not 
seat Rainey. 

Rowell, p. 733. 

(B) If Shaw is guilty of a crime, resort should be had 
to the criminal courts. 

Grace vs. Whaley, S. Carol. 1913. 

(C) Committee on Elections in a contested election 
case will consider only whether a member was duly elect¬ 
ed, properly returned and possessed of all the qualifica¬ 
tions prescribed by the Constitution. 

Maxwell vs. Cannon, 47tli Cong, 2 Ells. 653. 


14 


ARGUMENT. 

For sake of convenience, the argument will be taken 
up in sections corresponding to the divisions of the brief. 

I. 

The jurisdiction of the Elections Committee in con¬ 
tested election cases is limited to certain inquiries. The 
Committee will consider no questions except whether the 
member was duly elected, properly returned and posses¬ 
sed of all the qualifications prescribed by the constitu¬ 
tion. If it is said that he is ineligible to membership for 
other reasons, it is a matter to be considered in proceed¬ 
ings looking toward expulsion and beyond the jurisdic¬ 
tion of the Committee on elections except by special ref¬ 
erence. 

In this case, Contestant’s Notice of Contest contains 
eleven specifications. Not one of these eleven specifica¬ 
tions relates to the election, return or qualification of the 
Contestee. On the other hand, each and all of these speci¬ 
fications present “other reasons” why Contestee is in¬ 
eligible to membership. These eleven specifications are 
properly the subjects of a proceeding to expel and not a 
contest. There being no special reference in this case, 


15 


the Committee has no power to entertain this case. This 
being a question of the jurisdiction of the subject matter, 
it cannot be waived by any act or appearance of the Con- 
testee. 


II. 

In this case the burden of proof is with the Contestant, 
who must prove his case not by the weakness of Con¬ 
testee’s case but by the strength of his own. Before 
Contestant can win he must establish the ineligibility of 
Contestee to membership by a preponderance of legal 
evidence in this case. But Contestant here has not 
established any one of his eleven specifications. He has 
produced no affirmative proof, tending to establish his 
contention. 

The first four specifications of Contestant charging 
Contestee with failing to file reports of primary and 
election receipts and expenditures, proved to be ground¬ 
less. The uncontradicted evidence showed the prepara¬ 
tion and deposit of these reports at the proper time in 
the mails at Beardstown, by Contestee. G. W. Morton 
of Beardstown, testified that he visited Shaw at the time 
the reports were in preparation during the middle of 
October, and that they discussed certain items of the re¬ 
port at that time. The reports were not registered when 


16 


mailed and the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
testified that it was not customary to register such re¬ 
ports. 

Mr. Shaw testified that he did mail these reports within 
the time limited by law, and no evidence to the contrary 
was produced by Contestant. In contemplation of law 
the mailing of these reports within the time limitation is 
a compliance with the law. At any rate Contestee im¬ 
mediately upon hearing that his reports had not been re¬ 
ceived at Washington, prepared new ones and filed them 
with the Clerk of the House on January 31, 1921. These 
substituted reports were accepted and filed by the Clerk. 

Specifications five and six charging that Contestee 
failed to account for $2,000 donated to him by the Con¬ 
gressional Committee proved to be entirely without foun¬ 
dation. Contestee’s evidence accounts for every dollar 
of this $2,000 donation and shows conclusively that this 
money was spent by Shaw for legitimate campaign ex¬ 
penses. No evidence to the contrary was offered by Con¬ 
testant. 

Specification seven charging failure of Contestee to ac¬ 
count for “further campaign contributions’’ received by 
him “from other sources,” proved to be purely a creature 
of the mind of Contestant. The evidence showed without 



17 


contradiction that no other contributions were received 
by Shaw besides the $2,000 received from the National 
Congressional Committee, and that he used between $900 
and $1,000 of his own funds, and evidence was offered 
showing the proper expenditure of these personal funds. 

Specifications eight and nine charging conversion of 
money received from the National Congressional Commit¬ 
tee and of money received “from other sources” were 
made entirely without foundation and of course were dis¬ 
proved when the Contestee made a detailed statement of 
his receipts and expenditures which accounted for every 
dollar was received by him during the campaign. 

Threats ten and eleven admonishing Contestee that he 
might, under certain conditions, be liable to criminal 
prosecution, are entirely improper in this case and we 
dismiss them without further comment. 

Therefore we submit to the committee that Contestant 
has entirely failed to sustain the burden of proof which 
was on him in this case. He has not introduced any evi¬ 
dence proving or tending to prove his alleged specifica¬ 
tions 1-11. 


18 


III. 

(A) 

In this case Contestee was served with notice of the 
taking of depositions in Washington on the 23d of Feb¬ 
ruary, 1921, and a short time afterward was served with 
another notice of the taking of depositions in Beardstown, 
Illinois, on the 25th of February, 1921. The points at 
which these depositions were to be taken were 1,000 miles 
apart and it was a physical impossibility for Shaw and 
his attorney to be present at both places on the dates in¬ 
dicated. Contestee resented this unfair practice on the 
part of Contestant and wrote a letter protesting against 
it, to one of the attorneys for Contestant, and notifying 
him that if the depositions were taken, a motion to sup¬ 
press them would be made. 

We submit that under the authorities cited in our brief, 
the depositions taken at Beardstown on the 25th of Feb¬ 
ruary, should not be considered by the Committee. 

(B) 

It was developed at the hearing of the evidence in this 
case that Contestant based most of his alleged specifica¬ 
tions on “hearsay evidence.” Under the rules of evi¬ 
dence such evidence is not admissible, and it has been 
so held repeatedly by the Elections Committee; and in the 


19 


case of Ingersoll vs. Naylor, 26th Cong. 1 Bart. 34, the 
Committee said “if evidence of this character were re¬ 
ceived, it might be manufactured with impunity to any 
amount and no Representative would be secure of his seat 
for a single day ’ \ 

IV. 

The clearly defined purpose of Committees on Contested 
flection cases as stated in their opinions, is to determine 
which of the two Claimants was really elected; and they 
will not allow technical rules of law to interfere with this 
purpose. The uniform holdings of the Committee have 
been that the statute requiring the filing of the pleadings 
at certain times is purely directory and not mandatory. 
Therefore it has been repeatedly held by the Committee 
that the filing of the pleadings, both notice of contest 
and answer, out of time is not fatal and will not prevent 
the Committee from giving such pleadings their consider¬ 
ation, especially when no injustice results from the failure 
to file in time. 

In this case the answer of Contestee was not filed within 
the time limited but it was served on the Contestant per¬ 
sonally before any evidence in the case had been heard 
and was accepted by the Contestant without objection. 
Failure by Contestant to make any objection to the ser- 


20 


vice of the answer on him would waive any contentions 
that the answer was filed out of time. 

V. 

Election Committees proceed and administer the law 
upon equitable principles. In carrying out these princi¬ 
ples they look to the substance of matters before them 
rather than to their form. 

Even a total failure to file reports of primary and elec¬ 
tion receipts and expenditures has been held by the Com¬ 
mittees not to be fatal when there was no evidence that 
such failure was “wilful or on account of ulterior pur¬ 
poses”, the committee in their report saying “your com¬ 
mittee cannot recommend that Contestant.be denied his 
seat on account of his failure to comply with the technical 
provision of the law”. (See brief). 

In this case the Contestee did all that was required of 
him when he deposited his reports in the mail stamped 
and addressed to the Clerk of the House. As was testi¬ 
fied to by the Clerk of the House, the majority of such re¬ 
ports which he received were not registered. 

The evidence is uncontradicted that Contestee did pre¬ 
pare and mail these reports and that the date of the mail- 


21 


ing of the reports was well within the limit prescribed 
by law. 

VI. 

Taking up the last section made in the brief, we sub¬ 
mit to the Committee that Contestant has in this case, 
misconceived his remedy. He seeks, in a contested elec¬ 
tion case, to make charges and allegations that are not 
properly to be considered in such a proceeding. In a pro¬ 
ceeding to expel, the eleven spcifications of Contestant 
might have a proper place but not in a proceeding to con¬ 
test. There being no contention made here of the inva¬ 
lidity of the election, the ineligibility of Contestee would 
not seat the Contestant (See Brief). 

Moreover, this being, in effect, a proceeding to expel a 
returned and sitting member one who is not a member 
of the House should not be permitted to carry it on, but 
the proceeding should be dismissed. 

We further submit to the Committee that specifications 
ten and eleven of Contestant which threaten Contestee 
with criminal prosecution in case he does not account 
for certain moneys received, etc., are entirely improper 
and grossly offensive and were made for the purpose of 
intimidating Contestee and of bringing ridicule and in- 
just criticism upon him. We submit that the sanction 


22 


of such a practice is a highly dangerous precedent to set 
and that it should be strongly condemned by your Com¬ 
mittee. 

We submit that this proceeding should not be enter¬ 
tained on the initiative of Mr. Rainey who is not a mem¬ 
ber of the House; that he, as a private citizen has no 
authority or prerogative to carry it on; and that no 
authority except the House itself, is in a position to 
make or prosecute any such proceeding. 

Conclusion. 

Or if this contention should not be supported we re¬ 
spectfully submit that Contestant has not established 
any one of the eleven so-called specifications or charges 
made by him, against Contestee and that the report of 
your committee should be for Guy L. Shaw, sitting mem¬ 
ber and Contestee, and against Henry T. Rainey, Con¬ 
testant. 

Guy L. Shaw, 

Contestee. 

By William Mumford, 

His Attorney. 



1 


BEFORE THE 


House of Representatives 


CONTEST OF ELECTION 

Henry T. Rainey, Contestant, 
vs. 

Guy L. Shaw, Contestee. 


TWENTIETH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 


AMENDED ABSTRACT OF RECORD PREPARED BY 
CONTESTEE. 


William Mumford, 
Attorney for Contestee . 














CONTESTED ELECTION CASE 




V 


I 



OF 

Henry T. Rainey 


Guy L. Shaw 
from THE 

TWENTIETH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

Page of 
Record. 

1 Placita. 

3-4 Notice of Contest. 

Washington, D. C., 
December 16, 1920. 

To Guy L. Shaw, Beardstown, III. 

You are hereby notified that I will contest your 
election as a Member of the House of Representa¬ 
tives of the United States from the Twentieth 
Congressional District of Illinois for the follow¬ 
ing reasons: 

1. You did not file with the Clerk of the 
House of Representatives the statement required 
to be filed before the 1920 primary under the Fed¬ 
eral Campaign Publicity Act. 



2 

Page of 
Record. 

2. You did not file witli the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives the statement required to be 
filed after the 1920 primary under the Federal 
Campaign Publicity Act. 

3. You did not file with the Clerk of the 
House of Representatives the statement required 
to be filed before the 1920 general election under 
the Federal Campaign Publicity Act. 

4. You did not file with the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives the statement required to be 
filed after the 1920 general election under the 
Federal Campaign Publicity Act. 

5. You did not as required by law account for 
$1000 donated to you by the Republican National 
Congressional Committee on the 8tli day of Oc-. 
tober, 1920, to be used by you in your campaign. 

6. You did not account for $1000 as required 
by law, donated to you by the Republican Nation¬ 
al Congressional Committee on the 23rd day of 
October, 1920, to be used by you in your cam¬ 
paign. 

7. You did not in any manner in any statement 
filed by you in compliance with the law account 



3 

Page of 
Record. 

for further compaign contributions received by 
you from other sources. 

8. You converted to your own use a consid¬ 
erable portion of the moneys donated to you by 
the Republican National Congressional Commit¬ 
tee, and you did not use the moneys they donated 
to you in payment of your expenses as a candidate 
for Congress in the Twentieth Congressional Dis¬ 
trict of Illinois, nor did you return the unused 
portions of same. 

9. You converted to your own use and did not 
use in your campaign for nomination and election 
as a candidate for Congress in the Twentieth 
Congressional District of Illinois, other sums of 
money contributed from other sources. 

10.. You have failed to comply with the Federal 
Act providing for publicity of contributions, and if 
indicted under said Act you are liable upon con¬ 
viction of the four offenses you have committed to 
fines amounting in the aggregate not to exceed 
$4,000.00, or to imprisonment not to exceed in the 
aggregate four years, or to both fines and im¬ 
prisonment. 


4 

Page of 
Record. 

11. If indicted and convicted in the State courts 
of Illinois for misappropriation of funds contribut¬ 
ed for your campaign expenses, you are liable also 
to the penalties provided by the laws of Illinois. 

You are notified that it is my intention to contest 
your election and I rely particularly upon the 
grounds stated in this notice. 

Henry T. Bainey, 

Contestant. 

4-5 Answer of Contestee to Notice of Contest. 

Washington, D. C., 
February 23, 1921. 

In the matter of the Contest of the Election of 
the below subscribed as a representative from 
the Twentieth Congressional District of the 
State of Illinois. 

Hon. Henry T. Bainey, Contestant, 
vs. 

Hon. Guy - L. Shaw, Contestee. 

Answer of Contestee to notice of Contest of the 
above-named Contestant— 

Not admitting or confessing the truth of any of 
the items or specifications contained in the notice 
of Contest herein; and denying the sufficiency of 


Page of 
Record. 


0 


said Notice of Contest as a basis for a contest of 
election of a Representative in Congress; and pro¬ 
testing that such Notice, and the matters and 
things therein contained are scandalous, imperti¬ 
nent, and gratuitously insulting and libellous,— 
the said C'ontestee nevertheless makes answer 
thereto, as follows, that is to say: 

1. He expressly denies the truth of every 
allegation of fact contained in the eleven separate 
items and specifications in said Notice of Contest; 

2. He denies that he failed or refused to exe¬ 
cute and post the several Reports of Receipts and 
Expenditures referred to in specifications number¬ 
ed 1, 2, 3, and 4 of said Notice, with reference to 
both the Primary and the Election Campaigns in 
the year 1920; and he avers, on the contrary, that 
the same were made and filed pursuant to the Acts 
of Congress in such cases provided; and he makes 
reference to his affidavit and copies filed with the 
Clerk of the House on January 31, 1921, and 
makes the same parts hereof for the purposes 
hereof; 


6 

Page of 
Record 

3. He denies that he failed to account, as re¬ 
quired by law, for two separate contributions of 
$1,000.00 each, to his campaign expenses, by the 
Republican National Congressional Committee, as 
referred to in specifications numbered 5 and 6 of 
said notice of Contest, and he avers, on the con¬ 
trary, that he did fully account for and lawfully 
expend the same in the way and manner set forth 
in his affidavit and copies filed with the Clerk of 
the House on January 3, 1921, express reference 
being here made to said affidavit and copies, for 
the purposes hereof; 

4. He denies that he received or that he was or 
is bound to account for any further campaign con¬ 
tributions made to or for him during said cam¬ 
paign by any person or persons, other than said 
two separate contributions of $1,000.00 each so re¬ 
ceived from the Republican National Congression¬ 
al Committee, as referred to in specification num¬ 
bered 7 in said Notice of Contest; 

5. He denies that he converted to his own use 
any portion of the contributions of the Republican 
National Congressional Committee, as charged in 
specification numbered 8 of said Notice of Con- 


7 

Page of 
Record. 

test; and he denies that he converted to his own 
use any sums of money contributed from other 
sources to his said primary and election campaigns 
as charged in specification numbered 9 of said 
Notice of Contest; and he avers, on the contrary, 
that he received no contributions to said cam¬ 
paigns except said two contributions from the Re- 
publican National Congressional Committee; and 
he further avers that said sums so contributed 
were actually and lawfully used and expended in 
said Campaigns, as will more fully appear from 
his affidavit and copies filed with the Clerk of the 
House on January 31, 1921,—express reference 
being made thereto for the purposes hereof; 

6. He denies and resents the matters and things 
set forth in specifications numbered 10 and 11 of 
said Notice of Contest. 

7. Further answering, the Contestee avers that 
the contributions to his said primary and election 
campaigns were reasonable in amount, and well 
within the amount allowed by law for those pur¬ 
poses ; that all of said contributions, together with 
some money of Contestee, were actually and legit¬ 
imately expended in said primary and election 


8 


Page of 

Record. . ~ 

campaigns; that no fraud was practiced by Con- 
testee, and no elector was corrupted by or for Con¬ 
testee,—that Contestee assumed and believed that 
this Contest would be abandoned, and would not 
be pursued beyond the Notice of Contest,—that be 
neglected to make and serve this Answer upon 
Contestant, or to take any steps toward a defense 
of the same, until more than 30 days after service 
on him of the Notice of Contest,—that be bad no 
improper or ulterior motive in failing to sooner 
prepare to defend bis right to bis seat in the 
House,—that the new House to which Contestee 
was elected has not yet organized, that no injury 
to Contestant, or to any other person, or to the 
House has followed from a failure to sooner pre¬ 
pare and serve this Answer on Contestant, and 
that the same ought to be received and treated as 
if prepared and served within the time limited by 
Act of Congress; that Contestee was elected by an 
honest and clear majority of nearly 4,000 votes, 
and that to deprive him of his seat would be unjust 
to him as well as to the voters of said Congression- 


9 

Page of 
Record. 

al District; that this contest is not made or prose¬ 
cuted in good faith but is the product of envy and 
malice. 

Guy L. Shaw, Contestee. 

William Mumford, 

Attorney for Contestee. 

5-19 Depositions taken on behalf of Contestant. 

Testimony of Henry T. Rainey'. 

5- 6 Direct. 

6- 10 Cross-Examination : 

6 My reason for alleging that Mr. Shaw had not 
made his reports of receipts and expenditures in 
his primary and election campaigns, were investi¬ 
gations which I made in the office of the clerk of 
the House of Representatives. After these search- 

7 es, I made no further investigations. I did not 
make any investigations at Beardstown, Illinois, 
in regard to the deposit of these reports in the 
postoffice there. I am intimately acquainted with 
Dr. Schweer, the post-master at Beardstown. I 
did not know that Dr. Schweer stated that Shaw 
would never get his seat in Congress and if he did, 
it was after I told the Doctor that Shaw had failed 
to file his expense reports. I received no notice 


10 


Page of 
Record. 

from Dr. Schweer as to whether these reports had 
been deposited in the postoffiee or not, and I don’t 
know whether or not my attorney Mr. Dieterich 
received any such notice. By my fifth specification 
in which I charge that Mr. Shaw did not account 
for the $1,000 received by him from the Republican 
National Congressional Committee on Oct. 8, 1920, 
I meant to say that he had filed no account. The 
sixth specification also refers to Shaw’s failure to 
file a report, and to nothing else. 

At the time I made the charge in the seventh 
specification that Shaw had received other contri¬ 
butions for which he had not accounted, I did not 
really know of any such contributions. I sup¬ 
posed he had received some money from the state 
Committee, hut I do not know whether he did or 
not. 

Q. So you did not have any knowledge on 
which to base this specification at all? 

A. None at all, except that my inference was 
that I supposed he received them, as they had 
plenty of money in the District. 



11 

Page of 
Record. 

Q. Does this specification justify in your opin¬ 
ion, the charge that the act mentioned in the 
notice has been done? 

A. That is a matter of practice before the com¬ 
mittee. 

My only authority for the charge in my eighth 
specification that Shaw had diverted to his own 
use considerable moneys reoeived from the Re¬ 
publican National Congressional Committee was,— 

8 that I saw no evidence of the expenditure in my 
district of that sum of money by Shaw. I saw 
Shaw’s lithographs, circular letters and paid ad¬ 
vertisements in several newspapers. Newspaper 
publicity is expensive. I don’t know in how many 
papers in the District Shaw carried advertise¬ 
ments. I am entirely unqualified to estimate ex¬ 
penses on account of his newspaper publicity. 
There was no evidence of corrupt use of money at 
the election. Whatever irregularities or omissions 
I charge against Shaw do not affect the validity 
of the election. My only information that Shaw 

9 misappropriated money is hearsay and I feel that 
hearsay evidence justifies me in making the 
charge. I know of nothing else to justify my state- 


12 

Page of 
Record. 

ments that Shaw converted money to his own use 
which was contributed from other sources, except 
what I have already told you. 

My object in making the 10th and 11th specifi¬ 
cations admonishing contestee of penalties, pun¬ 
ishments, etc., was to inform him that he, if he 
failed to account for this money, might be prose¬ 
cuted under the laws of Illinois. I did not know 
that my attorneys served notices to take deposi¬ 
tions on the 23rd of February and 25th of Febru¬ 
ary, at points 1000 miles apart. 

10-14 Testimony of William Tyler Page. 

10-12 Direct: 

12 Cross: 

Two reports were filed in my office by Mr. Shaw to¬ 
gether with an affidavit purporting to be reports 
of receipts and expenditures, before and after the 
election, and one report was filed concerning pri¬ 
mary receipts and expenditures. The primary re¬ 
port covered receipts and expenditures before and 
after the primary. These reports were not re¬ 
ceived at my office within the time required by the 
Acts of Congress. I have no knowledge as to the 


Page of 
Record. 


13 


time these reports were deposited in the postoffice 
for carriage. The affidavit filed by Mr. Shaw with 
these reports does not state that they were regis¬ 
tered but that they Avere deposited in the mails. 
The majority of similar reports which I received 
during the last campaign Avere not registered. My 
office now contains the reports filed by Mr. Shaw. 

12-13 Redirect. 

13 Recross. 

It is the practice of my office, when reports are 
not received within the time prescribed, to stamp 
the reports as received on the date on which they 
were mailed. 

13 Re-redirect. 

14 Re-recross. 

On the 31st day of January, 1921, the cont-estee 
filed in my office an affidavit setting forth the dates 
on which he had made and filed in the postoffice at 
Beardstown three separate reports of receipts and 
expenditures connected with his primary and gen¬ 
eral election campaigns in the 20th District; and 
A\ r ith this affidavit were filed exact copies of three 
reports one covering the ante and post primary ex- 


14 


Page of 

penses, and one covering the election receipts and 
expenditures; and they were tiled with the affidavit 
on January 31,1921. 

14 Henry T. Rainey, recalled. 

Direct. 

Cross. 

I was in error when I stated that I had had a 
conversation with Mr. Page on the 15th of Febru¬ 
ary in which he told me that no reports had been 
tiled by Shaw. It must have been at an earlier 
date: 

15 William Tyler Page, recalled. 

Further Cross-examination. 

In my conversation of the 15th of February with 
Mr. Rainey, no reference whatever was made to 
whether or not any statement of the Contestee had 
been tiled since a former conversation sometime in 
January, that I had with Mr. Rainey. During my 
February conversation with Rainey I did not deem 
it my duty to apprise him that Mr. Shaw had tiled 
his reports on January 31st. 


15 

Page of 
Record. 

Testimony of Mr. T. C. Meeker. 

15-16 Direct. 

16 Cross. 

I can not say positively whether or not I did on 
the 11th day of October 1920, send to Mr. Guy L. 
Shaw letter concerning tiling of campaign reports 
as well as forms for such reports. I have no inde¬ 
pendent recollection of mailing letter and form. It 
was a practice to mail them to the nominees. 

17-18 Contestant’s Exhibits. 

17 Exhibit A.—letter from Rainey to Shaw enclos¬ 
ing copies of intention to contest election. 

17 Exhibit B.—registered article No. 221631 and re¬ 

turn receipt. 

17 Exhibit D.—letter from Louis L. Emmerson, Sec¬ 
retary of State, to Henry T. Rainey, in regard to 
canvassing votes at general election. 

18 Exhibit E.—Service of notice to take depositions 
on 23d of February, 1921 at the office of the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives by W. H. Dieterich 
and John F. McCarron, attorneys for Contestant. 


16 

Page of 
Record. 

18 Exhibit F.—Blank form of letter sent out by Na¬ 
tional Republican Congressional Committee to 
nominees. 

19-59 Depositions on behalf of Contestee. 

19-40 Testimony of Guy L. Shaw. 

19-25 Direct. 

19 Was elected at the November, 1920 election, to 
Congress on the Republican ticket. Majority was 
about 4,000. My district, normally is strongly 
Democratic. I was actively engaged in the election 
campaign. I went in each of the ten Counties of 
my District during the campaign. I bad other per- 

20 sons working for me in the District. 

Exhibit 1, is a notice of the taking of these de¬ 
positions which I sent to Mr. Rainey and to his at¬ 
torney, Mr. Dieterich; and exhibit 2 is a receipt 
signed by Mr. Rainey for the notices referred to. 

Exhibit 3 is a copy of the notice of taking of 
these depositions which was served on one of con¬ 
testant’s attorneys, in Washington. 

Exhibit 4 is the subpoena directed to be issued 
with proofs of service on witnesses to be examined 
today. 


17 

Pape oi 
Record. 

My last trip to Washington was for the purpose 
of taking depositions. I had been served with a 
notice that these depositions would be taken there 
on the 23d. 

21 Exhibit 5 is the notice of the taking of these de¬ 
positions in Washington to which I have just re¬ 
ferred. Just before leaving Beardstown for Wash¬ 
ington to attend the taking of these depositions on 
the 23d of February, I was served with a notice to 
take depositions in Beardstown in the same case 
on the 25th of February. 

Exhibit 6 is a notice served on me by Judge Die- 
terich for the taking of the depositions on the 25th 
at Beardstown. I regarded it necessary that I be in 
Washington on the 23d of February, when Mr. 
Rainey’s depositions were to be taken and was so 
advised. After receiving exhibit 6 from Judge Die- 
tericli I wrote him a letter which I offer as Ex¬ 
hibit 7. I don’t know whether or not these deposi¬ 
tions were taken in Beardstown on the 25th or not. 
My attorney is William Mumford of Pittsfield, Illi¬ 
nois, and he was present with me in Washington 
on the 23d at the taking of Mr. Rainey’s deposi- 


18 

Page of 

Record. , 

tions. He could not have been m Beardstown on 
the 25th. 

I have filed with the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives, reports of receipts and expendi¬ 
tures and campaign contributions under the act 
of Congress, and exhibit 8 is a receipt I hold from 
the Clerk of the House for the filing of these re- 
22 ports. I served an answer to the notice of con¬ 
test of election upon contestant. 

Exhibits 9 (a), 9 (b) and 9 (c) are copies of the 
reports which I filed with the Clerk of the House. 
They were sworn to when I filed them with the 
Clerk. 

Exhibit 10 is a true copy of the answer to the 
contest of election which I served on the Con¬ 
testant. 

Object to the receipts and consideration by the 
committee of those depositions which were prob¬ 
ably taken in Beardstown on the 25th of Febru¬ 
ary and I propose to move at the proper time to 
suppress the depositions for the reasons indi¬ 
cated. 


19 

Pape of 
Record. 

23 I am not a wealthy man. I received no assist¬ 
ance or contributions for my campaign fund other 
than those shown in the reports which have been 
offered in evidence. They amounted to 2,000.00 
received in two equal contributions from the Na¬ 
tional Congressional Committee. I spent tw r o- 
thirds of my time attending to my primary and 
election campaigns; travelled by automobile and 
on the trains; had paid publicity in the news¬ 
papers of the district; and employed persons to 
work for me in the interest of my candidacy. I 
received much assistance which was not charged 
for. 

My primary report, the items which I take 
credit for prior to September 5th, 1920, aggre¬ 
gating are correct and the money rep¬ 

resented by those items was actually spent by me 
for proper and legitimate campaign expenses, 
None of it was used for any corrupting or illegal 
purposes. 

The three items shown by my primary report 
after September 5th, 1920, are correct and that 
money was spent for legitimate campaign pur¬ 
poses. 



20 


Record. 

Rage of 

Exhibit 9 (b) copy of election campaign ex¬ 
penditures, aggregating $1,101.85 is correct and 
for the items and the money expended therein con¬ 
tained was used for necessary campaign expenses 
and not for any improper purposes. 

Exhibit 9 (c) which represents tw T entv-nine 
items of expenditures in my election campaign, 
aggregating $1,921.80 is correct and those amounts 
were actually expended for the purposes indicated. 

After my election certain persons circulated 
the reports in my district calculated to affect the 
honesty of my handling and disposition of cam¬ 
paign contributions. Because of these reports I 
submitted all of my receipts and expenditures to 
competent persons in Beardstown for an audit of 
my campaign accounts. Those persons did ex¬ 
amine my campaign receipts and expenditures and 
made a report. 

24 Mr. E. T. Hunter is a resident of Beardstown, 
Illinois, and cashier of Beardstown State Bank. 
He is also Secretary of the Republican County 
Central Committee. 


Page of 
Record. 


21 

Mr. Walter B. M^er is a business man and a 
Republican committee-man. 

Mr. Roy L. Phelps is a County Central Commit¬ 
tee-man and is an inspector in the Fish & Game 
Department of the State of Illinois. 

Mr. J. L. Long is a citizen of Beardstown and 
a groceryman. 

Mr. E. H. Schumann is a resident of Beards¬ 
town and a proprietor of a Hardware concern. 

Mr. W. G. Mooney resides in Beardstown and 
is engaged in the clothing and shoe business. 

Mr. F. William Wessel is a citizen of Beards¬ 
town and is engaged in the retail farm imple¬ 
ment business. 

X. M. Humphrey resides at Beardstown and is 
connected with the Glenn Ice & Fuel Co. 

Mr. E. J. Howard is a citizen of Beardstown and 
was at that time a book-keeper employed by the 
Shell Motor Co. 

Exhibit 11 is a correct copy of the report of 
the above auditors of my campaign receipts and 
expenditures. 


Page of 
Record. 


22 

Besides and in an excess of the $2,000.00, the 
money which I received from the National Re¬ 
publican Congressional Committee, I actually 
spent between $900 and $1,000.00 of my own money 
in my campaign. That is for election expenses 
only. 

I am not guilty of either of the first four 
charges or specifications contained in the notice 
of contest of election because I filed those reports 
with the Clerk of the House. 

The fifth specification which charges me with 
not accounting for the $2,000.00 received from the 
National Republican Congressional Committee is 
not correct, because in my reports I do fully ac¬ 
count for and explain in detail the expenditure of 
this $2,000.00. 

The seventh specification charging me with re¬ 
ceiving contributions from other sources is not 
correct because, I did not receive any contribu¬ 
tions other than the $2,000.00 received from the 
National Republican Congressional Committee. I 
never received any contribution from the State 


23 

Page of 

Record. 

Central Committee in Illinois, or from any other 
committee. 

The eighth specification charging me with con¬ 
verting to my own use considerable portion of the 
moneys received from the Congressional Commit¬ 
tee is not correct and my report filed with the 
Clerk of the House accounts for these very items. 

The ninth specification which charges me with 
converting to my own use other sums of money 
contributed from other sources is not correct be¬ 
cause, I received no money from other sources. 

The tenth and eleventh specifications advising 
me that if I am indicted I would incur heavy 
penalties, etc., I resent and deny my guilt. 

25-38 Cross-examination. 

38-39 Redirect. 

The last one of the reports already referred to 
of receipts and expenditures was sent by me on 
December 2,1920. On December 26,1920,1 received 
a notice of contest from Mr. Rainey. That was 
the first knowledge I had that my reports were 
not all on file in the Clerk’s office. I immediately 
set about filing the new reports which I deposited 


Pace of 

Record. 


24 

with the Clerk of the House on the 31st of Janu¬ 
ary. 

I am a member of the Illinois Constitutional 
Convention and was engaged in the duties of that 
place during a considerable portion of the year, 
1920. The Convention met at Springfield, Illi¬ 
nois. I was there most of the time and it was 
convenient for me to carry on my bank trans¬ 
actions there. The contributions from the Con¬ 
gressional Committee were both deposited in 
Springfield a few days after I received them. I 
have in my possession today, receipts showing the 
dates of these deposits and the amounts of the de¬ 
posits. 

Exhibits 12 (a) and 12 (b) show the deposit of 
moneys in Springfield of $1,000.00 in October 13, 
and $1,000.00 on October 26, 1920 and are the con¬ 
tributions received from the Congressional com¬ 
mittee. After the election I deposited in the 
Ridgely Bank at Springfield, money other than the 
two $1,000 deposits just referred to. This was 
my own money, most of which was spent in cam¬ 
paign work and consisted of $1,100 or $1,200. 


25 

Page of 

Record. 

39-40 Recross. 

40 Redirect. 

I was under the impression that the reports 
of receipts and expenditures which I handed to 
the Clerk of the House on the 31st of January, 
1921, was a sufficient answer to the notice of con¬ 
test until I was advised to the contrary by my 
attorney. 

40 Re-recross. 

41 Testimony of Roy L. Phelps. 

I live in Beardstown and was a Republican pre¬ 
cinct committee-man during the campaign in the 
fall of 1920. Our Local County Committee contrib¬ 
uted no money to Mr. Shaw for campaign purposes. 
I think I would know if they had. So far as I am 
informed the State Republican Committee of Illi¬ 
nois did not contribute to Mr. Shaw’s campaign ex¬ 
penses. I assisted Mr. Shaw personally in his cam¬ 
paign on several occasions for which I received no 
pay. Several of us helped him prepare his cam¬ 
paign literature. He circulated literature over the 
district and made an active campaign. I don’t 
know how much money he spent. 


26 


Page of 
Record. 

42-44 Testimony of G. W. Morton, 

I was intimately acquainted and associated with 
Guy L. Shaw in his campaign for election to Con¬ 
gress. He made an active campaign over the dis¬ 
trict. I was with him in six different Counties of 
the district. He spent considerable money for our 
expenses in making this tour. He mailed out a 
great deal of literature and lithographs, folders 
and letters. I worked for Mr. Shaw at times other 
than when I was with him. He paid my expenses. 
I know the occasion when Mr. Shaw’s wife bought 
$180 worth of stamped envelopes at Jacksonville, 
Illinois. I helped to mail them out afterward. I 
know of other persons who worked for Mr. Shaw. 
Before the election L. A. Zerrien of Princetown, 
W. H. Miller of Champaign and myself, made a 
speaking tour of Scott and Pike Counties. Mr. 
Shaw furnished me the money to pay for these 
expenses. All the money he furnished me was used 
for legitimate campaign purposes, such as taxi hire, 
car fare, hotel bills, items to newspapers, printing, 
telephone and telegraph. I was frequently at Mr. 
Shaw’s office and house during the campaign. Dur¬ 
ing one of these visits to his house I had my at- 


Pa«re of 
Record. 


27 


tention called to a report or printing on blank 
forms of receipts and expenditures being tilled out 
there. I saw them there. It was somewhere on 
Sunday, between the 13th of October and election 
day. I think it was Sunday after the 13th of Oc^ 
tober. I saw a document of that kind there, and 
we talked about it. I don’t know personally about 
the mailing of it. I don’t recall seeing any other 
reports along in December. I didn’t examine the 
report particularly but Mr. Shaw made the remark 
that he was making out his report and I believe I 
mentioned the money I had received. I know Dr. 
Schweer the postmaster at Beardstown and in a 
conversation with him about a week or so before 
the lection he made the statement to me that Shaw 
would never get to Congress. 

43- 44 Cross-Examination : 

44- 45 Testimony of E. T. Hunter. 

I live in Beardstown and am the cashier of the 
Beardstown State Bank. I am Secretary of the 
Cass County Central Committee and as such secre¬ 
tary keep a record of the meetings. The County 
Committee did not contribute any money to Mr. 
Shaw’s campaign expenses. The State Central 


28 


Pape of 

Record. . , T 

Committee did not contribute any money that 1 
know of. Mr. Shaw made an active campaign and 
had persons working for him. I know of litho¬ 
graphs being posted for Shaw and of literature 
sent through the mails. 

45-46 Testimony of J. E. Haywood. 

• I was a member of the Republican Cass County 

Central Committee in 1920. The County Commit¬ 
tee furnished no money to Mr. Shaw for campaign 
expenses to my recollection or knowledge nor did 
the State Committee do so. I know of persons who 
worked for Mr. Shaw, without charge, in the cam¬ 
paign. He made an active campaign for his elec¬ 
tion. 

46 Testimony of Dick Spicker. 

I live in Beardstown and am connected with the 
Dick Spicker Printing Company. Our Company 
did considerable campaign work for Mr. Shaw. I 
have a statement of the amount paid us by Mr. 
Shaw, aggregating $394.05. We got out poster 
cards, envelopes, etc., for him. That money was 
paid to me for work during the campaign. 

47 Stipulation between attorneys regarding tran¬ 
scribing of testimony. 


29 


Page of 
Record. 

47 Contestee’s Exhibit No. 1. Notice of taking of 
depositions at Beardstown, Illinois. 

47- 48 Contestee’s Exhibit No. 2. Registry number 

and receipt. 

48 Contestee’s Exhibit No. 3. Notice of taking of 
depositions at Beardstown, Illinois. 

48- 49 Contestee’s Exhibit No. 4. Subpoena for witness 

to appear as taking of depositions at Beardstown, 
Illinois. 

49 Contestee’s Exhibit No. 5. Notice of taking of 
depositions for Contestant at Washington. 

49 Contestee’s Exhibit No. 6. Notice of taking de¬ 
positions for Contestant at Beardstown, Illinois. 

50 Contestee’s Exhibit No. 7. Letter from Guy L. 
Shaw contestee, to W. H. Dieterich, one of the at¬ 
torneys for contestant, respecting the depositions 
to be taken at Beardstown for contestant on the 
25th of February. 

50 Contestee’s Exhibits No. 8, 9 (a), 9 (b), 9 (c) 


and 10 omitted in printing. 


30 


Page of 

Record. 

50 Contestee’s Exhibit No. 11, report of auditing 
committee of Beardstown, Illinois, of campaign re¬ 
ceipts and expenditures of Guy L. Shaw. 

50 Contestee’s Exhibit No. 12 (a), deposit credit 
for $1,000.00 from Ridgely Farmers’ State Bank 
to Guy L. Shaw, dated October 13,1920. 

51 Contestee’s Exhibit No. 12 (b), deposit slip for 
$1,000 from Ridgely Farmers’ State Bank to Guy 
L. Shaw, dated October 26, 1920. 

51- 57 Depositions for Contestant in rebuttal. 

52- 55 Testimony of Dr. T. J. Schweer. 

52-53 Direct. 

53 Cross. 

I don’t know that I ever had any conversation 
with Mr. Morton in regard to the Congressional 
election. I did not state that Shaw would not be 
elected. I may have had a general political dis¬ 
cussion with him. I did not necessarily know that 
Morton was supporting Shaw. I was not working 
for Shaw, my political connection being with the 
the other party. I am a personal friend of Mr. 
Rainey. My feelings toward Mr. Shaw were 
neither friendly nor hostile. I was postmaster 
during the whole campaign. I reported at the 
postoffice every morning at 7 A. M. and was there 


Page of 
Record. 


31 


on and off until 6 P. M. I was also engaged in the 
practice of medicine and gave my time to both. I 
did not personally assist in the distribution or 
preparation of mail for shipment; my employees 
did that. I do not know when Mr. Shaw usually 
deposited his mail in the office. I did not know 
that the law required Shaw to deposit reports in 
the House of Representatives,, and after I found 
that out I did not know that the law could be com¬ 
plied with by depositing these reports in the mail. 
The population of Beardstown is 7,300. Four city 
routes and three rural routes go out from the 
office. The office serves about 7,800 people. On 
the last count made we reported about an average 
of 2,700 pieces of mail handled per day on a six day 
run. That is out-going mail. I think it was prior 
to the November election. 

55-56 Testimony of Joseph Elliott. 

55 Direct. 

55-56 Cross. 

My hours of work as a postoffice employee, are 
9 A. M. to 6 P. M. 1 had charge of the placing of 
the out-going mail. In handling letters I only no¬ 
ticed the destination of the letters and not the ad- 


32 

Page of 

Record. 

dresses. I am not able to say whether reports 
from Guy L. Shaw to the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives were ever deposited in this post- 
office. I had nothing to call it to my attention. 

56-57 Testimony of George I. Buck. 

56 Direct. 

56-57 Cross. 

I left the office at 5 A. M. every morning. My 
successor came on at 9 A. M. Between 5 and 9 A. 
M. different delivery clerks had charge of the 
office. During that time no one there had charge 
of the out-going mail. At 9 o’clock Dr. Schweer 
came. After 7 and before 9 Dr. Schweer or any 
other person in the office would have access to let¬ 
ters deposited in the mail. I have no means of 
knowing whether the letters were placed in the 
postoffice or not. I don’t know when Mr. Shaw 
usually deposited his mail. 

57 Redirect. 

57 Stipulation between attorneys respecting tran¬ 

scribing of testimony. 

58-59 Notices and receipts of notice for taking deposi¬ 
tions for Contestant in rebuttal. 


William Mumford, 
Attorney f or 'Contestee. 


CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE OF RAINEY v. SHAW 


HEARINGS 

ill 

^COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS No. 2 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 
ON THE 

CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE OF 

HENRY T. RAINEY v. GUY L. SHAW 

FROM THE 

Twentieth District of the State of Illinois 


TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1921 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1921 



73S56 





COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS NO. 2. 


House of Representatives. 

SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS. 


ROBERT LUCE, 
JOHN M. NELSON, Wisconsin. 
RANDOLPH PERKINS, New Jersey. 
JOHN L. CABLE, Ohio. 

HENRY F. LAWRENCE, Missouri. 

JOE BROWN, Tennessee. 

2 


Chairman, Massachusetts. 

FRANK CLARK, Florida. 
MORGAN G. SANDERS, Texas. 
RILEY J. WILSON, Louisiana. 


CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE OF RAINEY v. SHAW. 


o 

I 



Committee on Elections No. 2, 

House of Representatives, 

Tuesday, October 25, 1921. 

The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. Robert Luce (chairman) pre¬ 
siding. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order and the clerk will call the 

roll. 

(The following members of the committee were present: Representatives 
Nelson, Perkins, Cable, Lawrence, Clark, Wilson, and Sanders.) 

The Chairman. We have before us this morning the contested-election case 
of Rainey v. Shaw. Under the rules governing committees on elections the time 
allowed for argument before the committee, unless otherwise ordered, shall be 
divided as follows: The contestant, or his counsel shall be limited to one hour 
in opening; the contestee or his counsel shall follow for a period not exceeding 
one hour and a half; and the contestant or his counsel shall be entitled to half 
an hour in closing. 

Mr. McCarron, are you ready to proceed? 

Mr. McCarron. Yes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN F. McCARRON, ATTORNEY FOR CON¬ 
TESTANT, HENRY T. RAINEY. 

Mr. McCarron. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I regret to 
have to report that Mr. Rainey is unable to be present, due to the fact that he 
had a previous lecture engagement and he was not able to complete the same 
until the first of the week. I received a wire from him this morning, stating 
that he had just returned to his home in Carrollton, Ill., last night, and there¬ 
fore it was impossible for him to be present to-day. 

Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a motion for the consideration of the com¬ 
mittee before proceeding with the argument in this case. I move that the pur¬ 
ported answer filed by the contestee in this case, together with all evidence 
taken by him in support of all statements set forth in said purported answer 
to contestant’s notice of contest, be stricken from the record, and on that mo¬ 
tion I desire to be heard. 

The Chairman. We will hear you. 

Mr. McCarron. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the record 
in this case shows that Henry T. Rainey, contestant, on December 16, 1920, 
served a notice of contest on Guy L. Shaw, the contestee, in which are set forth 
11 specifications. This notice of contest was filed in accordance with the 
Revised Statutes covering notices of contests of election. I refer particularly 
to the act of February 19, 1851. This notice of contest was not filed until 
after the board of canvassers in the State of Illinois had determined the 
result of the general election held in that State in November of 1920, and 
said notice of contest was given within 30 days from the date on which the 
canvassers of the vote in the State of Illinois announced the result of said 
election, which was on December .1. 1920. The contestee in this case did not 
file his answer, as required under the Revised Statutes, within 30 days from 
the date on which notice of contest was served upon him, to wit, December 
19 1920, by W. H. Dieterich, at Beardstown, Ill. This committee has no 
jurisdiction, under the act jof 1851. to consider the purported answer of the 
contestee because it was not filed by him until February 23, 1921. Even if 
that can be considered as a service upon the contestant, this committee can 
not waive the statute for the contestee. The only way by which the contestee 

3 



4 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


can get a proper answer before this committee, in view of the fact that there 
was no compliance with the statute of 1851, is by a resolution of the House 
of Representatives. 

That has been the custom, as shown by the precedents set forth in Hinds’ 
Precedents of the House of Representatives, which hold that the consent of 
the House must be obtained to do something after the time set forth in the 
statute has run. Contestee states in lbs brief that the statute is merely di¬ 
rectory and cities McLean v. Bowman. I happen to have here both the ma¬ 
jority and minority reports in that case, decided in the Sixty-second Con¬ 
gress, second session, Houe report No. 1182, and I desire particularly to call 
to the attention of this committee the minority report made by the Republican 
members of that committee, composed of Hon. S. F. Prouty, Hon. Charles 
Matthews, and Hon. Frank B. Willis, now a Senator from the State of Ohio, 
who was then a Member of the House of Representatives. In that minority 
report those gentlemen have correctly set forth the custom followed in the 
House of Representatives in determining the proper pleadings that must be 
tiled by the contestant and the contestee under the act of 1851. If the com¬ 
mittee desires to go into this in more detail than is set forth in this minority 
report I am prepared to show by the Congressional Globe of 1850 and 1851, 
when this statute was enacted, what the gentleman who had charge of the bill 
on the floor of the House said as to what was required in regard to the 
pleadings in contested election cases, and I am also prepared to cite for you 
a number of cases in Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives, 
relating to this question of the taking of testimony after the statute had 
expired and where the House of Representatives passed a resolution permitting 
the contestee, upon a proper showing, to take additional testimony after the 
statute had run. 

Therefore, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I submit for your 
consideration the question that you have no jurisdiction to consider the pur¬ 
ported answer of this contestee, nor any testimony introduced by him in 
support of any allegations made by him in his answer to the contestant’s 
notice of contest. 

The Chairman. Mr. Mumford, do you desire to be heard on that motion? 

Mr. Mumford. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM MUMFORD, ATTORNEY FOR CON¬ 
TESTEE, GUY L. SHAW. 

Mr. Mumford. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, a brief state¬ 
ment of the essential facts m'ght be of more service to the committee, it appears 
to me, at this moment than any discussion of the legal effect of these facts. It 
is quite true, as Mr. McCarron has stated to the committee, that the notice of 
contest was served in this case on the 19tli day of December, 1920. Mr. Shaw, 
by reason of certain events in his own district, had a feeling, perhaps not justi¬ 
fied—indeed, not justified at all, because a man ought always to be on the alert, 
I assume, in a matter of this kind—but owing to certain conditions in his district 
lie seemed to think or had reason to feel that the contest would not be pressed, 
and he neglected it to some extent. He came on to Washington without his 
counsel and took counsel with various persons here in Washington, and he filed 
with the Clerk of the House substituted reports of his receipts and expenditures, 
which had never been received by the Clerk of the House. Mr. Shaw received 
the impression at that time that the filing of these substituted reports of receipts 
and expenditures amounted to an answer to the notice of contest. 

That was the impression he was under. Then, as the record shows, he came 
back to Illinois—I live in a remote part of the district from him—and when we 
met he was advised that he must answer the notice of contest. In the meantime 
notice had been given by Mr. Rainey to take the deposition of the, Clerk of the 
House and one of the members of the national congressional committee in Wash¬ 
ington on the 23d of February. We came on together to attend the taking of 
those depositions. In the meantime this answer had been prepared. No evi¬ 
dence had been heard, and before any evidence was heard that answer was 
served upon Mr. Rainey and was accepted by li'm without objection, so that 
when all the evidence was taken on behalf of contestant in this case he had the 
benefit of the answer, whatever that benefit may have been to him. 

Now, the opposition of the contestee in respect to this motion, Mr. Chairman 
and gentlemen of the committee, is this: In the first place, we say that the time 
within which pleadings are to be tiled is directory. It has been so held by re- 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


5 


ports of election committees and accepted by the House. That, we think, is not 
contrary to the general ruling with regard to the time within which public 
officials shall do certain things. They are always held directory unless the 
statute makes them mandatory and requires them to be done within a certain 
limit of time, or unless there is some special reason why it should be done 
within that time. 

We do not think the statute requiring this answer to be filed within 30 days 
after the service of notice of contest is mandatory at all; we think it is directory, 
and we think the authorities cited in our brief justify that contention. The 
answer was not filed in time, but there was some little excuse for it, and the 
failure to file it in time was not because of any defiance of the power of Con¬ 
gress, the action of the committee, or the rights of the contestant; it was simply 
done under the conditions and circumstances which I have detailed to the 
committee, and it was received in plenty of time to advise the contestant of 
exactly what the contentions of the contestee were, because it was delivered to 
him before any evidence was ever heard in the matter. 

The second suggestion which I desire to make to the committee on this point 
is this: When this answer was served upon Mr. Rainey it was accepted by 
him without protest and without objection. If lie had a right at the time 
this answer was served upon him to object to its having been served out of 
time, it seems to me he must have exercised that right when he accepted the 
answer, but he accepted it without protest and without objection. So, on these 
two points, we submit to the committee that the answer, filed out of time as it 
was, and the evidence in support of that answer, ought not to be excluded, but 
ought to be entertained by the committee. 

Mr. Cable. May I ask the gentleman a question? 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

Mr. Cable. I would like to ask Mr. McCarron this question: Suppose we 
strike Mr. Shaw’s answer from the record. What are the decisions as to 
whether or not Mr. Shaw would still be permitted to introduce evidence in 
support of his case? Before I came here I was counsel for the defense in a 
contested election case in Ohio; I filed answers on behalf of certain contestees, 
and the court struck the answers from the files, but still permitted us to in¬ 
troduce evidence in support of our defense in the case. Now, even if the 
answer was stricken from the record, what decisions have you which preclude 
Mr. Shaw from introducing his evidence? 

Mr. McCarron. I have this to say in answer to your question: That it is 
not for me to determine what the House of Representatives would do in the 
matter of a resolution that might be presented, a resolution which would permit 
the taking of testimony after this answer had been stricken from the record, 
because there has been no compliance with the statute of 1851. 

Mr. Cable. What I want are any precedents you may have in mind or know 
of showing what was permitted with reference to the introduction of testimony 
on behalf of the contestee after the answer has been stricken from the record. 

Mr. McCarron. I will say to the gentleman that I can not give him a par¬ 
ticular case on that point at this moment, but I am here on behalf of the con¬ 
testant to point out that there has been a noncompliance with the statute by 
the contestee in not filing his answer within the required time, and that 
therefore, this committee can not consider any evidence that may be adduced 
by the contestee in support of that purported answer. I am not prepared to 
make a statement with regard to what this committee could do about Mr. 
Shaw’s taking any additional testimony, and I do not think I ought to make 
such a statement, because it is not for me to set forth what the contestee might 
do in furnishing testimony that would be germane. It seems to me that is a 
matter for the contestee. 

Mr. Cable. You do not mean to contend, then, that if the answer is stricken 
from the record the contestee can not introduce evidence to rebut the evidence 
of the contestant? 

Mr. McCarron. I do mean to say that the statute has run as to the matter 
of taking testimony, but as to what the House of Representatives might do, by 
a resolution permitting the taking of testimony after the statute has run, I am 
not prepared to say, but I do think that a sufficient showing would have to be 
made to the House in order to permit the taking of testimony after the statute 
of limitations had expired. 

Mr. Wilson. Mr. McCarron, at the time this testimony was taken was there 
any protest or objection raised to the taking of it? 


6 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Mr. McCarron. I will answer that by reading from the testimony of Mr. 
Henry T. Rainey on direct examination, appearing on page 6: 

“ I might further state that the notice of contest served by me upon Mr. Shaw 
was served within the time required by law, and that the time provided for 
Mr. Shaw to answer the same has passed. No answer was ever served on 
me until a few minutes ago in this room, when Mr. Mumford, representing 
Mr. Shaw, tendered me what he states purports to be an answer to my notice 
of contest.” 

Mr. Sanders. What is the date of that? 

Mr. McCxVrron. That was on February 23, 1921, the day we first took testi¬ 
mony in the case. 

Mr. Cable. Was any objection made at any time to the taking of testimony 
on behalf of Mr. Shaw? 

Mr. McCarron. I do not think there was any particular objection made to 
the taking of any testimony. 

Mr. Cable. The question had not been raised until you raised it here to-day? 

Mr. McCarron. I did raise the question of this answer of the contestee being 
admitted as evidence in the printed record when it was before the clerk of the 
House. When this question came up as to printing the record we appeared 
before the clerk of the House—that is, Mr. Shaw and I—and I objected at that 
time to the printing of this purported answer. 

Mr. Cable. Was that a verbal objection or was it in writing? 

Mr. McCarron. It was a verbal objection. 

Mr. Cable. And that objection is not in the record? 

Mr. McCarron. It is not, at least I do not find it. I tried to find where the 
clerk made a note as to it, and I note he did with reference to other testimony, 
but I do not find any note in that particular unless I have overlooked it. 

Mr. Perkins. Is it your idea that we should proceed like a court; that these 
pleadings be treated as though filed in court, and that there can be a judgment 
by default for the failure to file the answer within time? 

Mr. McCarron. My answer to that question is this: This committee should 
proceed in order under the statute of 1851 in view of the precedents of the 
House of Representatives. 

Mr. Wilson. Your motion is to strike out the answer and the testimony taken 
under the answer filed on behalf of the contestee? 

Mr. McCarron. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. If we should do that then we would simply have the petition of 
the contestant and the testimony taken under that. 

Mr. McCarron. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. Then what issues would be left to decide? 

Mr. McCarron. That, of course, is a matter for the committee to determine. 
I am simply pointing out what we have done under the statute, that we have 
made a compliance with the statute, and that it is incumbent upon the con¬ 
testee to also comply with the statute of 1851, otherwise there is no issue before 
this committee at this time under that statute. 

Mr. Perkins. Then you would be entitled to a judgment by default? If 
there is no issue, you are entitled to a judgment by default? 

. Mr. McCarron. You would not blame us for that? 

Mr. Perkins. No. I wanted to get what your legal position is. 

Mr. McCarron. I claim that when this contestant has complied with the 
law, has introduced his testimony in accordance with the law, and has proved 
certain of the specifications contained in the notice of contest that it is a matter 
to be considered by this committee. 

Mr. Cable. You contend, then, that we would have the right, if we complied 
with your motion, to examine the testimony on the part of Mr. Rainey? 

Mr. McCarron. I do. 

The Chairman. If the gentlemen will withdraw to the other room for a 
few moments, I think we can act on this motion. 

(The committee thereupon went into executive session, after which the 
chairman said:) 

The Chairman. Mr. McCarron, the motion is denied. 

Mr. McCarron. May I ask, if it is in order, whether that was on a strict 
party vote? 

The Chairman. I do not think that question should be answered. 

Mr. McCarron. 1 think the question is fair, because I think an answer would 
not divulge any of the secrets of the executive session. 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


7 


The Chairman. It is a general principle of parliamentary law that the pro¬ 
ceedings in executive sessions of the committee are not to be made public. 

Mr. McCaeron. Mr. Chairman, is it in order to take up the question of the 
admissibility of certain evidence that has been introduced by the contestee 
before commencing the argument? 

The Chairman. I see no reason why your hour should not be used as you 
see tit. 

Mr. McCaeron. Well, I did not know whether you want to take that out of 
my time, although I desire to take up no more of the time of the committee 
than is absolutely necessary, but I would like to call the committee’s attention 
to one or two things in regard to the evidence. 

Mr. Clark. Could not that be done as you proceed with your argument? 

Mr. McCaeron. Yes; I think so. Mr. Chairman, on December 16, 1920, the 
contestant, Henry T. Rainey ,addressed a notice of contest to the contestee, 
Guy L. Shaw, at Beardstown, Ill., which notice of contest contained 11 
specifications, as set forth on page 3 of the printed testimony. The contestee 
did not answer the notice of contest within the 30 days required by the statute, 
and on February 14, 1921, the contestant, through his attorneys, W. H. Dietericli 
and myself, gave notice of the taking of depositions on behalf of the contestant 
in the office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives at Washington. A 
copy of this notice was served on the contestee’s wife, Mrs. Bessie D. Shaw, 
at Beardstown. Ill. Depositions were taken on February 23, 1921, at the office 
of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the depositions of Hon. Henry T. 
Rainey, the contestant, Hon. William Tyler Page, Clerk of the House of 
Representatives, and Mr. T. C. Meeker, chief clerk of the Republican con¬ 
gressional committee. 

Mr. Rainey testified that he had not received an answer to his notice of 
contest until February 23, 1921, when Mr. Mumford, representing Mr. Shaw, 
handed him what purported to be an answer to the notice of contest of the 
contestant. The testimony of Mr. Rainey, taken at that time, pointed out the 
reasons why he had instituted this contest, and which go to sustain the points 
raised by him in the specifications contained in the notice of contest. In the 
cross-examination conducted by Mr. Mumford there were many immaterial 
questions, showing that, in large measure, he was fishing without bait. Mr. 
Rainey’s answers to all these irrelevant questions by the attorney for the 
contestee are to the point and show his earnestness to place before this com¬ 
mittee and the House a full statement of the issues involved. 

Under specifications 1, 2, 3, and 4, Mr. William Tyler Page, Clerk of the 
House of Representatives, testified that he did not receive any campaign state¬ 
ments within the time required by law from Mr. Shaw, either before or after 
the primary election held in Illinois or before or after the general election 
held in Illinois in 1920. Mr. Shaw stated that he had filed on January 31, 
1921, an affidavit with purported copies of campaign statements. He did not 
say they were purported copies, but he stated that there was an affidavit filed, 
with copies of his campaign statements. This affidavit, with these purported 
copies, were objected to by me, representing the contestant, at the time of the 
printing of this testimony, and they were excluded from the record by the 
Clerk of the House as immaterial and irrelevant. 

I am reviewing, gentlemen of the committee, some of the essential points 
of the testimony before taking up the argument. Mr. Meeker, chief clerk of 
the Republican national congressional committee, in connection with the 
mailing of letter of committee with regular forms for making campaign state¬ 
ments, stated: 

“To the best of my recollection I think I mailed one to every Republican 
nominee. I am quite sure, but I am not positive. I endeavored to mail one 
to every Republican nominee. 

“ Q. There would be no reason why you should not mail the letter and forms 
to Mr. Shaw?—A. No.” 

Testimony was taken at Springfield, Ill., on February 23, 1921, and at 
Beardstown, Ill., on the same date. Due notice of the taking of this testimony 
was served upon Mr. Shaw. Mr. Shaw objected to the admissibility of this 
evidence at the time of the printing of the record by the Clerk of the House 
on the ground that he could not be present at both places and take testimony, 
as he had to be in Washington on February 23, 1921, at the time of the taking 
of the depositions. We think that excuse is far-fetched, in view of the fact 
that testimony can be taken at several places at the same time, and for the 


8 


KAINEY YS. SHAW. 


further fact that anyone acquainted with the train schedules between here and 
Illinois, as I am, would know that you could leave here, as we got through 
early on the 23d of February, and arrive in Beardstown or Springfield, III., 
on the 25th. We submit that the testimony—which has not been printed— 
that was taken by this contestant at Springfield, Ill., and Beardstown, Ill., on 
February 25, 1921, should he admitted as testimony in this case. 

Some time later the contestee took testimony, and Mr. Guy L. Shaw, the 
contestee, under direct examination by Mr. Mumford—which was, to a large 
extent, objected to most strenuously by Mr. W. H. Dieterich as being largely of 
an immaterial nature, as the committee will observe by tiie direct examina¬ 
tion—offered certain exhibits known as Nos. 8, 9-A, 9-B, and 9-C, which 
are set forth in the statement of the Clerk of the House in the evidence and 
which were objected to at the time of their introduction by the contestant, 
and which were, upon objection by counsel for the contestant at the time of 
the printing of this record, stricken from the record by the Clerk of the 
House. Under cross-examinatiton by Mr. Dieterich, my associate, Mr. Shaw 
testified that he did not file the answer to the contestant’s notice of contest 
until February 23, 1921; that he had read the Federal statutes with reference 
to contests of elections, and that the affidavit, with purported copies of cam¬ 
paign statements filed by him on January 31, 1921, with the Clerk of the 
House, were regarded by him as a sufficient answer to the contestant’s notice 
of contest. He also testified in regard to certain items of expenditures made 
in his campaign as to the preparation of campaign statements and depositing 
the same in the post office for mailing, but nowhere did he testify that he had 
done that which was required by the statute and which would constitute a 
filing under the statute. 

At this point I desire to call the committee’s attention to public law No. 
32, an act to amend an act entitled “An act providing for publicity of con¬ 
tributions made for the purpose of influencing elections at which Representa¬ 
tives in Congress are elected,” and extending the same to candidates for nomina¬ 
tion and election to the offices of Representative and Senator in the Con¬ 
gress of the United States and limiting the amount of campaign expenditures, 
and I direct the committee’s attention to that portion of the statue wherein it 
is provided: 

“ That the depositing of any such statement in a regular post office, directed 
to the Clerk of the House of Representatives or to the Secretary of the Senate, 
as the case may be ”— 

And I call your attention, gentlemen, to these words: 

“ Duly stamped and registered within the time required herein shall be 
deemed a sufficient filing of any such statement under any of the provisions of 
this act.” 

The Chairman. Are you willing to be interrupted as you go along? 

Mr. McCarron. Certainly. 

The Chairman. Do you think that precludes all other methods of filing? 

Mr. McCarron. I will say in answer to that, Mr. Chairman, that this statute 
provides two methods of filing. The first is by the method which I have just 
read, that of depositing the statement, duly stamped and registered, in a 
regular post office within the time required by the statute. That is a filing, 
and another method of filing is that of depositing it in the Clerk’s office within 
the time required by the statute. 

Now, gentlemen of the committee, this was not a Democratic act of Congress, 
nor can it lie called a Republican act of Congress, for I desire to call the com¬ 
mittee’s attention to the fact that this was an enactment of the Sixty-second 
Congress, ’first session, and, as you gentlemen who were Members of that Con¬ 
gress will recall, there was a Democratic House of Representatives and a Re¬ 
publican Senate. A report was presented by Mr. Rucker, of Missouri, chairman 
of the Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives 
in Congress, entitled House Report No. 1, Sixty-second Congress, first session, 
and a report was presented by Senator Dillingham, Senate Report No. 78, 
Sixty-second Congress, first session, from the Committee on Privileges and 
Ele<Tions, and, gentlemen of the committee, I desire to call your attention to 
the fact that when House bill 2958, which was the original bill for this statute, 
came before the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, that Republican 
committee said in its report: 

“ But the committee are of the opinion that the scope of the measure should 
be broadened and its provisions be made more comprehensive by extending its 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


9 


operations so as to give publicity to all campaign contributions and expenses 
at primary elections where congressional nominations are made, and all general 
elections where Representatives to Congress are chosen, also at all primary 
elections held for nomination of Senators in the Congress of the United States, 
all general elections at which candidates for that office are seeking indorsement, 
and all elections of United States Senators by legislatures of the several States, 
and that for this purpose the act should require all candidates at any of said 
elections, whether as Representatives or Senators in Congress, to make and file 
with the Clerk of the House of Representatives or with the Secretary of the 
Senate of the United States, as the case may be, both before and after said 
elections, itemized statements covering all amounts received and expended by or 
for them to further their election.” 

Now, gentlemen, we submit that the evidence shows that there was not a 
proper filing under the law before or after the primary election held in Septem¬ 
ber, 1920, in Illinois, and that the evidence also shows there was not a proper 
filing before or after the general election held in Illinois in 1920 by the con- 
testee, Guy L. Shaw. 

The Chairman. Mr. McCarron, on page 10 of your brief you appear to restrict 
your contentions on the question of filing such a statement before and after 
an election, having recognized on the preceding page the Newberry decision. 

Mr. McCarron. I am coming to that, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Nelson. Assuming that Mr. Shaw has been derelict in filing a statement 
of his campaign expenses, is he not subject to a fine, and in what way does that 
pertain to his seat in the House? 

Mr. McCarron. I think it goes to the qualifications. 

Mr. Nelson. Morally, legally, or how? 

Mr. McCarron. I do not think that is a proper question for me, represent¬ 
ing the contestant, to answer. I think that is a matter which should be de¬ 
termined by this committee, if you please. 

Mr. Nelson. I just wanted to get your view, but if you do not care to give it, 
all right. 

Mr. Cable. With reference to this primary report, would not that affect the 
other candidates he ran against at the primary rather than the gentleman he 
ran against at the election, assuming that he did fail to file such a primary 


report ? 

Mr. McCarron. It would affect all candidates at the primary. 

Mr. Cable. In other words, would not that be a ground for contest on the 
part of the other candidates at the primary rather than a right of contest for 
Mr. Rainey? 

Mr. McCarron. No; I think it goes to the question of the qualifications of 
the candidate, and that it also does affect Mr. Rainey. But I will come to that 
later in the discussion of this particular point. Now, gentlemen, the Supreme 
Court of the United States in the Newberry case—you are all familiar with 
that decision, I assume—held, in effect, that the law relating to the primary 
elections was unconstitutional but it did not say that in regard to general elec¬ 
tions and expressly stated in its opinion—an excerpt of which we have set forth 


in our brief-—as follows: 

“As each House shall be the judge of the elections, qualifications, and returns 
of its own Members, and as Congress may by law regulate the times, places, and 
manner of holding elections, the National Government is not without power to 
protect itself against corruption, fraud, or other malign influences." 

It is my opinion that the provision of the publicity act or the corrupt prac¬ 
tices act with respect to general elections is a valid act, and, therefore, the 
specifications alleged by the contestant are germane to this question. 

The Chairman. That is a very interesting question, Mr. McCarron, and I 
have heard it somewhat discussed. You contend, then, that the law is separable 

and that it is not a whole? . . . . . 

Mr McCarron. I do not contend exactly that it is separable in perhaps 
the sense you mac mean, but I do say, from the words of the Supreme Court 
in the Newberrv case, that that portion with respect to the general election 
statute is a valid one. That is what the court said. I present that for the 
consideration of the committee, because I think it very clearly differentiates 
between the primary and the general election. 

The Chairman. I take it we shall be the first body to have to put ourselves 
upon record as to whether or not, in our judgment, so much of the law as 


10 


RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


relates to elections does survive tlie Newberry case, and I would be very glad 
to have tlie aid of your views as to whether it is separable or not. I want to 
find out whether your contention is that that decision throws us back on the 
general principle of qualifications or whether we can take the specific authority 
of so much of the corrupt practices act as relates to elections. 

Mr. McCakron. In answer to that I would say that I think this committee 
can clearly determine that question under the decision in the Newberry case. 

The Chairman. You think we can assume that so much of the act as relates 
to elections survives? 

Mr. McCarron. I submit, as I stated before, that I shall not attempt to 
place a different interpretation upon that statue than has been placed by the 
Supreme Court of the United States, and ns a member of the bar of that court 
I follow that court in that decision until it has been reversed or changed. 

The Chairman. We all do that, Mr. McCarron, but our difficulty is as to 
how we shall construe this somewhat uncertain statement of the court. I 
confess myself puzzled to know whether the court meant that in their judgment 
a part of that law survived or whether the court meant to throw us back upon 
our general authority. 

Mr. McCarron. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to give this committee any 
and all information I have at my command with respect to this contest, but 
when it comes to an interpretation of the law, we have set that forth, I think, 
very clearly in our brief, and I do not want to say what position this committee 
should take except that which has been stated in the brief filed with you. 

The Chairman. Pardon me if I persist, but I do not gather from your brief 
whether you contend Mr. Shaw is not qualified because he violated the corrupt 
practices act. 

Mr. McCarron. I submit. Mr. Chairman, that the brief is very clear. 

Mr. Clark. What is your position on it, Mr. McCarron? What do you con¬ 
tend before us now? Do you contend that his failure to file these statements 
within the time required disqualifies him for a seat in the House? 

Mr. McCarron. Even though this committee should hold that the part relat¬ 
ing to primary elections is invalid, I submit that the portion of the statute with 
relation to general elections would still hold under the decision in the New¬ 
berry case. Do I make myself clear? 

The Chairman. Yes; that is clear. 

Mr. Clark. I wanted to get your idea of that, whether you contend that the 
portion of the law relating to general elections is still in force notwithstanding - 
that decision. 

Mr. McCarron. In view of the fact that this committee or the House of 
Representatives is the judge of the qualifications of its Members, and in view 
of the fact that this statute was in existence at the time of the filing of these 
statements, and even though that portion of it has been declared unconstitu¬ 
tional since that time, I think it is a matter for the committee to look into, as 
to whether or not there was a compliance with that portion of the statute at 
a time when it was required that there should be a filing of campaign state¬ 
ments. 

The Chairman. That raises still another difficult question, whether the dec¬ 
laration that a law is unconstitutional and void wipes out all responsibilities 
before that declaration was made. What do you think of that? 

Mr. McCarron. That law does not wipe out the fact that Congress still is 
the judge of the qualifications of its Members. 

The Chairman. That is true, but you just now asked us to consider the 
violation of the law relating to primaries. 

Mr. McCarron. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And I sought your judgment as to whether a subsequent 
declaration that that law was void wiped out everything that went before or 
whether the fact that a man violated a law that was presumed at the time to be 
valid is to be taken into consideration? 

Mr. McCarron. I think that all of the allegations made by the contestant 
In his notice of contest are subject to careful investigation by this committee. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. McCarron. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: In the course 
of the cross-examination of Mr. Shaw by Mr. Dietericli a question arose as to 
an item of $200 which had not been accounted for, and I want to read that 
portion of the testimony, which is set forth on page 15 of contestant’s brief: 

“ Q. I notice an item here to campaign worker, November 11, $200.—A. That 
was cash. 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


11 


aU che ? k ? ° n , the llia sely Farmers’ State Bank; is that 

“ n aVi A ‘ 1 n l\ k tliey are; 1 dl(ln t notice definitely and specifically. 

“ 1 m Was the campaign worker that you paid $200 to on November 11? 
nftiHinoi ilLM - F ? ED * 4 - 1 w ^? t to object t0 the question, for the reason that for 
nnlwAvH ? ler f- tl011S Tl t doesn,t seem to ine advisable that this witness should 
that question. If the committee insists on his disclosing the name of the 
peiso 11 to whom he paid, he will do so; hut I feel he should not do that, for 
political and personal reasons.” 

OintUemof m tUe eommittee that the «>ntestee should be required to explain 
upon? * HAInMAN * ^ allegation would such an explanation support or bear 

Mr. McCarron. Sir? 

d he ( haieman. What allegation in your grounds of contest would such an ex¬ 
planation support or bear upon? 

Mr. McCareon. I refer the committee to specifications 5 and 6, and suggest 
that they should receive consideration from the committee. 

The Chairman. Do you press your allegation that there was an improper 
expenditure. 

Mr. McCarron. M e do not say that, but we think information regarding that 
item should be furnished to the committee so as to determine whether it was 
a proper or improper expenditure. We do not say it was an improper expendi¬ 
ture, but we would like to know, and we think the committee ought to know 
what it was expended for. 

Mr. Perkins. Unless you raise a question as to the propriety of that expendi¬ 
ture, why should we go into it further? If you say it is an improper expenditure, 
we can go into it; but if not. why should we bother with it? 


Mr. McCarron. How can we determine it? 

Mr. Perkins. I know, but unless you make the allegation that it was an im¬ 
proper expenditure why should we go into it further? 

Mr. McCarren. I think the testimony given on cross-examination, page 31, 
would probably warrant that. 

Mr. Perkins. Very well. 

Mr. McCarron. Now, I want to refer to the statement, brief, and argument 
for the contestee. There are a number of statements in the brief of contestee, 
among them this one : 

“ Mr. Shaw, the contestee is a young man entirely without polictical experi¬ 
ence, and has devoted practically his life to agricultural improvement and 
allied matters. He is not a man of fortune, and for that reason was unable to 
indulge in that lavish expenditure of money which very often characterizes 
our local elections.” 

We submit to the committee that that statement, among a number of other 
statements in the statement of counsel for contestee, is immaterial and irrele¬ 
vant. I do not think that is a question to be considered by the committee as to 
whether Mr. Shaw is a young man. I think he is very well able and capable 
of taking care of himself, and I do not know whether this committee is going 
to consider the question of his political experience or not. 

Mr. Wilson. Your position is that if he should be found to belong to the 
agricultural bloc that should not make any difference? 

Mr. McCarron. I am not prepared to express an opinion on that. 

Mr. Cable. Do you think he is appealing to that bloc for votes? 

Mr. McCarron. I have friends who are members of that bloc and I would 
not want to take exception to that. 

I have called attention to the fact that contestee stated it was a physical 
impossibility for him to be present at two or more places. However, it appears 
there are two attorneys, William and Barry Mumford. I have never met Mr. 
Barry Mumford, but I have a pleasant acquaintance with Mr. William Mumford. 
So if the contestee had desired, as I see it from all the circumstances, he could 
have taken testimony at Beardstown. 

Mr. Clark. Was testimony taken at those two places? 

Mr. McCarron. It was, Mr. Clark, and it is now a part of the record before 
this committee. 

Mr. Clark. Was Mr. Shaw represented at all? 

Mr. McCarron. He was not, but he had been given notice. 

Mr. Clark. How much notice did he have? 

Mr. McCarron. The date of it is shown in the record, I believe. In the con- 
testee’s brief reference is made to the case of Maxwell v. Cannon, Forty-third 


12 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


Congress, Smith, 188. I submit, gentlemen of the committee, that that case 
is not in point, for the reason that the statute in regard to publicity of campaign 
expenses was not enacted until the Sixty-second Congress, whereas the particular 
case pointed out here was settled in the Forty-third Congress. 

It says here: 

“ Burden of proof on contestant: Whoever seeks to oust a member who has 
been elected at the polls, must accomplish it by proving a case. The difficulties 
in his path can form no possible reason why the committee should meet him 
half way. The rule of reason requires that he should fully make out his 
case even though it involve the proof of a negative.” 

We are not asking the committee to meet us half way. We submit that 
the statements made in the brief of contestant are supported by the evidence 
in this case and that evidence goes to support the allegations made in the notice 
of contestant. 

In the c-ontestee’s brief ’reference is made to the case of McLean v. Bowman, 
Merrill Moores’ Digest, page 54, and it is stated: 

“ Time at which pleadings in contested-election cases should be tiled is 
merely directory, for no statute can defeat the constitutional right of the 
House ‘ to judge of the qualifications and election of its own members.’ ” 

We do not contend that this statute would defeat the constitutional right 
of the House, the statute of 1851. but we do contend that that statute is 
binding both upon the contestant and the contestee, and the only way by which 
a proceeding can be had, in addition to that set forth in that statute, is by 
a resolution of the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Perkins. You are referring to the statute of 1851 r 

Mr. McGarron. Y r es, sir; under which this committee is operating. It states 
here: “Notice of contest. Must be specific and put contestee on notice.” I 
submit that the specifications contained in contestant’s notice are specific; 
that the notice itself does put contestee on notice and that said notice of 
contest was duly made within the time required by law. 

I want to call your attention again to the case of McLean v. Bowman, 
where the House refused to seat either the contestant or the contestee, which 
you will note by the proceedings. 

In the contestee’s brief, reference is made to the case of MacDonald v. 
Young, Merrill Moores’ Digest, page 63, and the contestee has set forth in 
italics: 

“The delinquency of contestant lies solely in his failure to comply with 
the law within the time required.” 

That is the end of the italics and the end of the quotation. Then the 
brief goes on to say: 

“ While the House must retain the right, etc., ‘ in this instance, the failure 
to comply with the law, as has been disclosed, carries with it nothing of 
opprobrium, and your committee can not recommend that contestant be 
denied his seat on account of his failure to comply with the technical provisions 
of the law.’ ” 

Now, gentlemen of the committee, I want to submit that at page 66 of Mer¬ 
rill Moore’s Digest, in regard to this very case, the committee said: 

“ Evidence was taken showing that the contestant failed to file with the 
Clerk of the House, as provided by law, prior to the general election held on 
November 5, 1912, an affidavit setting forth the source or sources of moneys 
contributed to his campaign fund, and also failed to file, as provided by law, 
an affidavit touching election contributions and expenses within 30 days fol¬ 
lowing the general election. 

“ No issue was made in the pleadings upon this subject, arid the precedents are' 
numerous to the effect that no issue having been raised upon it, the committee 
is not bound to give the subject consideration.” 

I submit that that case is not in point with the case before you. 

Gentlemen of the committee, I think I have covered the various points in the 
evidence, the various cases which have a bearing upon this particular case, and 
we submit that the evidence shows that the contestee is not entitled to his seat 
in the House of Representatives. His failure to comply with the publicity act 
would show that he would not be a qualified candidate under the law, and we 
submit that Henry T. Rainey, who was a qualified candidate under the law, 
did receive the votes of the people of that district as such qualified candidate 
and is entitled to a seat in the House of Representatives. I thank you. 

The Chairman. Do the gentlemen of the committee desire to ask Mr. Mc- 
Carron any further questions? If not, we will listen to Mr. Mumford. 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


13 


ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM MUMFORD, ATTOR¬ 
NEY FOR CONTESTED. 


Mr. Mumford. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it is my idea 
that I can make the contentions we wish to submit to the committee very brief. 
It is perhaps unnecessary for me to suggest or even intimate to the committee 
that 1 am not familiar with this sort of practice in this city. I am somewhat 
familiar with legal procedure and judicial determinations and proceedings, 
but not with this exact proceeding. 

I have never been able to take the view that Mr. McCarron seems to take 
and to believe that this matter is as serious as he seems to regard it, and I 
have never been able to see how it could possibly happen, if the committee’s 
report and the action of the House should be averse to Mr. Shaw, that it 
would result in seating Mr. Rainey. There is in this case no complaint that the 
electorate was corrupted. Not a single vote in that district was corrupted. 
There is no complaint as to the manner in which the votes were counted 
or the manner in which they were certified. In the brief and in the argument 
here to-day the sole complaint made is that Mr. Shaw was derelict in doing 
certain things within the time required by the statute and rules of the House. 

Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the primary in Illinois 
was held on the 15tli of September, 1920. Up to that time Mr. Shaw had 
received no financial assistance from anybody, as the record shows. I am 
now stating what' this record shows. He had expended something less than 
$450—and properly expended it—in his preliminary campaign. After his 
nomination he received financial assistance from the national Republican con¬ 
gressional committee—that is to say, on the 8th of October he received $1,000 
from that committee and on the 24tli of October he received another $1,000 from 
the same committee. He never at any time received any financial assistance 
from anybody except the two $1,000 contributions from the congressional com¬ 
mittee. Mr. Shaw 7 was at the time a member of the constitutional convention-- 

Mr. Clark (interposing). The Republican congressional committee or the 
national Republican committee? 

Mr. Mumford. The national Republican congressional committee. Mr. Shaw 
w 7 as at the time in attendance upon the constitutional convention over in our 
State, which was sitting at Springfield. These two contributions received 
from the congressional committee were, because it was convenient for him to 
do so, deposited in a Springfield bank and not in his home town at Beardstown. 
He expended the $2,000, as the record shows, and about $1,000 of his own 
money, making a total expenditure of something less than $3,000 in both the 
preliminary and final election campaigns. 

On the 2d of November, when the election was held and the votes were 
counted, Mr. Shaw was found to have about 4,000 more votes than Mr. Rainey. 
The district is composed of 10 counties and is a large district in area. It has 
always been a strong Democratic district, every county in the district being 
Democratic until last fall, except that on occasions some one of the counties 
might go differently; but on this occasion Mr. Shaw 7 carried the district by 
about 4,000 votes, and he carried every county in the district except tw 7 o, Mr. 
Rainey’s own county and a small county called Brown. 

On the 22d of September, which was just one week after the primary, Mr. 
Shaw did, as he testifies himself—and there is not any testimony to the con¬ 
trary at all—make out a report of his preliminary or primary campaign ex¬ 
penses He had certain receipts and he had certain expenditures. He ad¬ 
dressed that to the Clerk of the House of Representatives and deposited it in 
the post office at Beardstowm. It was addressed and stamped, but it w r as not 
registered. I take the view that the provision in the statute with reference to 
the registering of these reports does not operate to exclude any other method 
of doing that thing, and the testimony of Mr. Page, the Clerk of the House, is 
that a majority of these reports are not registered at all; that they come 
through unregistered mail into his office. In accordance with the geneial lule, 
I take the view that when a man deposits a letter or an acceptance or anything 
of that kind in the post office, properly addressed and mailed, it is a completion 
of the acceptance or is a delivery of the communication whenever he delivers 


it in the post office. ^ 

The evidence show 7 s that on the 24th of October he made a report upon a 
form furnished to him by the national congressional committee of his expendi- 
tures up to that time, after the primary and before the election, i he total of 
those expenditures up to that moment w 7 as about $1,600, as I recollect it. the 



14 


RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


election occurred on the 2d of November, and the record shows that on the 
2d .of December, exactly 30 days after that election, upon a form furnished by 
the national congressional committee, he made a further report stating his 
receipts and expenditures, including these two contributions from the national 
congressional committee and including expenditures showing that he had used 
about $1,000 of his own money, and every item was a proper expenditure. 

Mr. Nelson. He made a report to whom? 

Mr. Mumford. To the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and deposited it 
in the post office at Beardstown, addressed to the Clerk of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives. Now, it may seem singular, and it does seem singular, indeed, that 
neither of these reports reached the Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Cable. Were they typewritten and copies made at the time? 

Mr. Mumford. No ; there was no copy made at the time, but they were made 
from a memorandum tablet which he carried in his pocket, including his re¬ 
ceipts and his expenditures on account of his campaign. 

Mr. Nelson. Were they made accordiftg to the form of the Clerk? 

Mr. Mumford. They were made on the form furnished by the congressional 
committee. 

The Chairman. That is, the first report was not made on a form? 

Mr. Mumford. No, sir; but the other reports were made on a form furnished 
by the congressional committee. 

Mr. Nelson. Being a candidate running for the first time, when did Mr. 
Shaw learn that he was required to file a report as to these campaign funds? 

Mr. Mumford. He learned it early in the campaign, and on the 22d of Sep¬ 
tember, just one week after the primary, he made his primary report; he in¬ 
cluded in that report all of tlie primary expenses before and after the primary, 
and he mailed it one week after the primary. 

Mr. Nelson. But he did not have a form? 

Mr. Mumford. No, sir; that was not done on a form at all. 

Mr. Nelson. What did he go by? 

Mr. Mumford. Well, he just made out a list, as the record shows, of his 
expenditures. 

He had no receipts at that time at all; and he made a list of his expenditures 
during the preliminary campaign, or primary campaign, and mailed it to the 
Clerk of the House. 

Now, Mr. Shaw never received any notice at all that these reports had not 
been received by the Clerk of the House until this notice of contest was served 
on him on the 19th day of December, 1920. That notice of contest, as I under¬ 
stand it, is the basis of this proceeding. 

It may be divided into four groups. There are 11 of the specifications. The 
first four of the specifications charge that he failed to make his anteprimary 
report and his postprimary report, and his anteelection report and his post¬ 
election report. Those are the first four specifications in the notice of contest. 

Specifications 5, G. and 7 charge Mr. Shaw, in a phraseology which I never 
could understand until Mr. Rainey testified, that he had failed to account for 
the two $1,000 contributions from the congressional committee, and that he had 
failed to account for contributions, not naming the amounts, from other sources. 

When Mr. Rainey was on the stand, I asked him what he meant by speci¬ 
fications 5 and 6; what he meant by failure to account. He stated that he 
meant the failure to make the report referred to in the first four specifications. 
So that that is the interpretation that Mr. Rainey placed upon these specifica¬ 
tions 5 and G. 

Now, with regard to specification 7, something has been said about “ fishing 
without bait.” Specification 7 charges that he failed to file a report account¬ 
ing for money received from other sources. I said, “ Mr. Rainey, what other 
sources do you refer to?” He said he did not know anything about it; he 
had no information on the subject; he just assumed that ilie State committee 
over in Chicago may have helped, but he did not know anything about it, so 
that these two charges in this contest are not of any consequence. 

Now, his specifications 8 and 9, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com¬ 
mittee, were very offensive to Mr. Shaw. It seems to me that they are not 
proper. Unless he expects to substantiate that kind of a charge a man ought 
not to make it. He charges in specifications 8 and 9 that Mr. Shaw misappro¬ 
priated or embezzled to his own use; he does not use the word “ embezzled,” 
but he charges that Mr. Shaw misappropriated moneys donated for his cam¬ 
paign expenses by the national congressional committee. 


RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


15 


When the hearing was held in this case, items were furnished showing that 
that was not true at all. Mr. Rainey had no information upon which to base 
that serious charge that he made against this man. And at great length, as 
the committee will observe, in my cross-examination of Mr. Rainey, I sought 
to find out what basis he had for the charge that this man had embezzled 
$2,000. and I found that he had no basis at all, but that he was “ fishing with¬ 
out bait.” 

Now. his specifications 10 and 11 are singular. I doubt if anything of that 
kind ever occurred before a committee of the House before. I want to read 
to the committee the tenth and eleventh specifications. They are a sort of 
curtain lectures and admonitions to a man that he has committed a crime and 
is liable to be sent to the penitentiary and have to serve four or five years. 
Specification 10 charges: 

“ You have failed to comply with the Federal act providing for publicity of 
contributions, and if indicted under said act you are liable upon conviction 
of the four offenses you have committed to fines amounting in the aggregate 
to not to exceed $4,000, or to imprisonment not to exceed in the aggregate 
four years, or to both fines and imprisonment.” 

Just what place that sort of an admonition has in a notice of contest has 
never appeared clear to me at all. 

His specification 11 reads as follows: 

“ If indicted and convicted in the State courts of Illinois for misappropria¬ 
tion of funds contributed for your campaign expenses, you are liable also to the 
penalties provided by the laws of Illinois.” 

These are the specifications which furnish the basis of this contest. 

The Chairman. Before you proceed, Mr. Mumford, may I inquire in con¬ 
nection with specification No. 11 whether Illinois has any corrupt practices act? 

Mr. Mumford. No. sir. 

Mr. Sanders. May I ask in that connection how much you can spend under 
the law of Illinois in an election? 

Mr. Mumford. I do not know, but I do not think there is any such pro¬ 
vision in Illinois. I do not have it in mind, if there is any provision. 

The Chairman. This allegation, then, would not refer to any liability under 
the Illinois law? 

Mr. Mumford. No ; that refers to the misappropriation of money contributed 
for a particular purpose, under the general Criminal Code of Illinois, I take it. 

Now, when Mr. Shaw came over here to take those depositions on the 23d of 
February he found that it was indeed true that Mr. Page, the Clerk of the 
House, had not received his reports. It was not with him at the time, but he 
immediate wrote home to get his memorandum tablet, upon which he had noted 
his receipts and expenditures. And as soon as he got that from home, he made 
out three separte reports covering the periods which had been in the original 
reports mailed in the post office at Beardstown. 

Mr. Cable. To whom did he write at home to get that report? 

Mr. Mumford. He wrote to his wife to have that memorandum tablet sent 
here to Washington. And these reports were made up from that memorandum 
tablet, and an affidavit was prepared to the effect that he had deposited these 
reports in the post office at Beardstown, and there is no contradiction of that 
at a n— no t a particle—in the record. And an affidavit was prepared stating 
that these were substantial copies of the reports which he had deposited in the 
post office at Beardstown, and he filed these substituted reports, together with 
that substituted affidavit with the Clerk of the House, and they were received as 
reports under the corrupt practices act by the Clerk of the House. 

On the morning of the taking of these depositions in Washington a complete 
and categorical denial of the averments of this notice of contest was delivered 
to Mr. Rainey. This answer, barring the fact that it was out of time—that is, 
that it was not made within 30 days of the filing of the notice of contest with 
Mr. Shaw—is in exact conformity with the requirements of the law in this 
respect; it makes a general denial of the averments of the contest and then 
denies them as the notice of contest proceeds, seriatim. 

I assume, gentlemen of the committee, that in this committee, just as in a 
court of appellate jurisdiction, if a man does not argue any particular assign¬ 
ment of error made upon the record, he is considered to have waived or aban¬ 


doned those assignments which he does not argue. 

In the printed brief in this case, three positions are taken by this contestant, 
and three only, and I feel that I should confine myself in the few remarks I 
make to these" three propositions. 


16 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


His first proposition is that Mr. Shaw failed to file his answer to the notice 
of contest within 30 days. 

I have said to the committee already what I have to say in regard to that. 
I claim that that is merely directory, as in all cases of public official action, 
unless there is an express provision of the statute to the contrary. I think 
the authorities cited in our brief support that contention. Mr. Shaw did not, 
indeed deliver that report within the 30 days. But he had formed the im¬ 
pression, as I stated before, that when he filed his substituted reports here 
with the Clerk of the House, that in some way answered the requirement of 
the law that he should answer the notice of contest given by Mr. Rainey. It 
was filed out of time; there is not any sort of doubt of that. 

Mr. Clark. Will you permit a question? His failure to file them in time— 
what is your contention as to the result of that? 

Mr. Mumford. My contention as to the result of that failure is this, that if in 
fact they were filed in sufficient time to protect the contestant in all of his rights, 
nobody is injured; nobody is hurt; that is merely directory, that they shall be 
filed within the 30 days; and if they are filed outside of the 30 days, but in time 
to preserve all the rights of the contestant, no serious consequence ought to 
result from the delay in filing. 

The Chairman. Do you go far enough there, Mr. Mumford, to cover the pre¬ 
election report? 

Mr. Wilson. I think, Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt, that he is talking about 
the filing of the answer to the contest. 

Mr. Mumford. Yes, sir; that is what I am addressing myself to now. And 
that is merely a pleading; that is all it is. The notice of contest is a pleading 
similar to the declaration in law, and the filing of an answer is akin to the plea; 
and we take the ground that the 30 days is merely directory; and we have 
authorities to sustain our position. And we claim that that answer was deliv¬ 
ered to Mr. Rainey in sufficient time to protect his rights, because no evidence 
had been taken at all at that time. 

And we submit that when Mr. Rainey received that answer without objection, 
he waived the objection that it was not made in time. And we make the further 
contention, as indicated by one of the members of this committee this morning, 
that when that evidence was heard, upon the notice of contest and answer, with¬ 
out objection or protest from the contestant or his counsel, it is too late now to 
raise the question of the admissibility of that evidence under the issues raised in 
these pleadings. 

The next point made in contestant’s brief is that Mr. Shaw did not file his 
brief and report within the time required by law and the rules of the House. 

Our answer to that, in the first place, is that he did that which in law was a 
filing of those reports; and that is uncontradicted in this record; that when he 
made out these reports and mailed them at the post office at Beardstown, ad¬ 
dressed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, he did that which in law 
amounts to a delivery of that document to the Clerk of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives. 

Mr. Cable. How large is the town of Beardstown? 

Mr. Mumford. It is a city of perhaps 8,000 or 10,000. 

Mr. Nelson. Let me ask you a question: Suppose that, by accident or other¬ 
wise, I forget about the requirement of filing a statement of campaign ex¬ 
penses; what effect would that have on my election? 

Mr. Mumford. I am very glad my attention has been called to that. We cite 
a case in our brief, a case reported upon by the committee and acted upon by 
the House, in which it is said that if the failure to file is not willful or is not 
for any ulterior or wicked purpose, it does not defeat the right of the partv 
who failed to file. There is an authority of the committee and the House of 
Representatives upon that point which is cited in our brief. Now, the evidence 
here clearly shows that there was no willful failure upon the part of Mr. 
Shaw and no ulterior purpose upon his part. 

Mr. Nelson. That is, you mean no trying to dodge the corrupt practices act 
at all? 

Mr. Mumford. None at all; there is not a particle of evidence of corruption. 

Mr. Wilson. The law fixes a penalty for failing to file, does it not? 

Mr. Mumford. Yes, sir; the law fixes a penalty. And I am not certain but 
that Mr. McCarron’s idea is that if Mr. Shaw has violated the law and has 
made himself liable to criminal prosecution he can hardly be said to have the 
qualifications required of a Member of the House. I suppose that could be 
claimed—that if he has incurred penalties lie is not a fit Member of the House 
of Representatives. 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 17 

Mr. Nelson. Does not that raise another question—that the moral issue is one 
exclusively for the House and not for the benefit of any candidate? 

Mr. Mumford. Undoubtedly, I think that could be the result. If Mr. Shaw is 
excluded, the committee surely should not seat Mr. Rainey. That is the wav 
it seems to me. 1 

Mr. Wilson. The question arises, How are you to find out whether this fail¬ 
ure—if we reach the conclusion that there was a failure to file these reports— 
has any taint and corrupt intention attached to it? 

Mr. Mumford. The only way to find that is from the circumstances and the 
evidence taken on the contest. Now, the evidence in this case very clearly shows 
that there was no reason for Mr. Shaw to seek to suppress these reports at all. 
Every dollar that he paid out was paid out for legitimate purposes and well 
within the limitation fixed by the law in that election. 

Mr. Sanders. What was the total amount that he failed to account for? 

Mr. Mumford. Somewhere around $3,000—$1,000 of his own money and $2,000 
from the congressional committee-—in both campaigns, the preliminary campaign 
and the last one. 

In view of the authority which has been cited in our brief to the effect that 
if a failure to file these campaign expenditures and receipts is not willful or 
for any ulterior purpose, we take the position that, even if Mr. Shaw had never 
mailed these at all, but had not failed to do it through any willful or ulterior 
purpose, as disclosed by the evidence, it did not affect his right to a seat in the 
House. We think that authority justifies that position. 

Mr. Cable. What do you think as to the rights of constituents and their not 
being represented in the House as a result of mistakes of candidates? 

Mr. Mumford. Well, I do think the constituents ought not to be deprived 
of their representation by the omission or failure of any elected candidate. It 
seems to me the answer is obvious—that if Mr. Shaw had been dilatory and 
negligent in filing reports required by law, he is elected by the people of that 
district, and it would hardly be fair to the people of that district to deprive 
them of their Representative because Mr. Shaw has innocently, and not will¬ 
fully or for any ulterior purpose, failed to do something which the law requires 
him to do. 

Now, I want to refer to this $200 expenditure very briefly. I am not ac¬ 
quainted with the ways of politicians at all. But politicians have a way, I 
believe, of expending money which, while it is not corrupt or improper at all, 
yet owing to the manner or the sources, 'or the instruments through which it 
is expended, they might not wish to divulge; so I know how Mr. Shaw felt 
about that $200. It is not alleged here that it was a corrupt expenditure, and 
it was not. But I knew Mr. Shaw’s attitude, and they seemed to be “fishing 
without bait,” to try to find out who represented him and helped him in the 
campaign; and when the question was put to him, I made the suggestion that 
I was perfectly willing to give it to the committee if the committee desired 
the information, but I would rather not answer it at that time, or at any time, 
unless the committee desired it; and that is my attitude to-day. 

Mr. Cable. Does not the law require that he tell to whom he paid this money? 

Mr. Mumford. Well, I do not understand that it does. I do not understand 
that that law requires that positively. I am not certain, however. He did not 
do it in his report. He simply reported it as paid to a campaign worker; that 
is all there is to it. 

Mr. Clark. I think the law does require it. 

Mr. Mumford. Well, if it does he is perfectly willing to comply with the 
wishes of the committee, or with the requirements of the law in that respect. 
There is nothing to be concealed about the matter at all, except as to the in¬ 
strument through which—or through whom—this work was done; that is all. 

I would like now to say a word to the committee as to the status of this 
contest. As I say, I am not familiar with these things. But I do not see just 
how this can be regarded as a contest of Mr. Shaw’s election. It seems to me 
that, if it should result unfavorably to Mr. Shaw, it could not seat Mr. Rainey; 
and therefore I can not see how it can be regarded as a contest by Mr. Rainey 
against Mr. Shaw. 

Neither can it be regarded as a proceeding to prevent Mr. Shaw from receiv¬ 
ing his seat, because he has already been seated. The aspect and status of this 
case, to my mind, is simply this: 

It is a proceeding to expel a returned and sitting Member, for some reason 
or another; and I must say that it appears here that this proceeding is car- 

73856—21-2 



18 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


ried on by a non-Member of the House; and while it may be legitimate and 
proper and regular enough for him to do it—I do not doubt the power of the 
House to purge itself of unworthy membership at all; I understand the con¬ 
stitutional provision and the practice of the House in that respect—but just 
how a non-Member can carry on a proceeding to expel a returned and sitting 
Member for impropriety of conduct, I do not understand. It seems to me 
that this is in effect a proceeding to expel a returned and sitting Member, 
and it is carried on by a non-Member of the House; and I submit to the com¬ 
mittee that it ought not to receive consideration for that reason, as well as 
for others. 

The Chairman. In the course of your argument, Mr. Mumford, you started 
a sentence of the effect that it. might seem singular that none of these three 
returns were received by the House? 

Mr. Mumford. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman. And you were diverted from that line of thought by ques¬ 
tions. Did you contemplate addressing yourself to that phase of the matter? 

Mr. Mumford. I simply intended to finish the statement with these additional 
words, Mr. Chairman: The record shows that it may seem singular—it does 
seem singular. But the record shows that that thing was done at Beardstown; 
that those reports were deposited in the post at Beardstown; and however 
singular it may be, and undoubtedly it is true that the Clerk of the House 
never received them, it is owing to some sort of irregularity that I do not un¬ 
derstand myself. 

The Chairman. You do not contemplate, then, embarking upon the issue 
and advancing any possible explanation? 

Mr. Mumford. No, sir. The relations between Mr. Shaw and the postmaster 
there were not pleasant; but I can not bring myself to believe—there is a little 
evidence in the record to this effect: Rev. Mr. Morton, who lives at Beardstown, 
stated that he had a conversation with the postmaster, Dr. Schweer, just a few 
days before the election, in which Dr. Schweer said to him: “ Guy Shaw will 
never get into the House.” I sought to develop that on examination: “ Just 
what did you mean by that?” Well, he said that he did not think he made 
the statement at all; but if he did make the statement, he meant that Mr. 
Shaw would not be elected; and before election, perhaps, that was the construc¬ 
tion to be given to it. 

Now, with regard to these reports, I have omitted to state a very material 
matter to the committee. This Rev. Mr. Morton states that he was in Mr. 
Shaw’s house the first Sunday after the 15th of October, if I remember cor¬ 
rectly, and he saw this election report made out, as I remember it now, on 
Mr. Shaw’s desk, and he went over the printed items with Mr. Shaw, and they 
discussed some of the items in that report. He does not testify that he saw Mr. 
Shaw mail it; but Mr. Shaw testifies that he did mail it. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you claim that he deposited it within the hme required by 
law? 

Mr. Mumford. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sanders. That is your contention? 

Mr. Mumford. That is my contention, that he did, in fact, make those de¬ 
posits within the time required by law. 

Mr. Clark. Mr. Mumford, let me ask you this: It is my understanding that 
the expression of one means of doing a thing does not exclude other means. At 
the same time, when the law prescribes that the deposit of a return such as this 
in the post office, properly addressed, stamped, and registered, shall be con¬ 
sidered a filing—I believe that is the provision of the law? 

Mr. Mumford. That is the effect of it, I believe. 

Mr. Clark. Now% do you mean to say that if you adopt some other means, 
that shall be considered as a filing also? 

Mr. Mumford. Yes; I do not understand it to be exclusive. 

Mr. Clark. Although it has not reached the clerk’s office? 

Mr. Mumford. Although it has not reached the clerk’s office at all. 

Mr. Clark. 1 understand that the law has prescribed this particular method 
and has prescribed that that shall be, considered a filing, although it has not 
reached the Clerk? 

Mr. Mumford. That is declared by the law to be a filing. 

Mr. Clark. Yes; but if you do not pursue that method and your return does 
not in fact reach the Clerk, would you consider that to be a filing? 

Mr. Mumford. Well, I would consider that the general legal proposition is in 
force, that whenever a man deposits a duly addressed document in the post 
office—that is, a delivery—would apply. 


RAINEY VS. SHAW. 


19 


Mr* Clark. Yes; but the law prescribes bow it shall be clone in this case. 

Mr. Mumford. But it does not require that it shall be done that way. 

Mr. Wilson. Well, the object of the law, as I understand it, in prescribing 
that it shall be deposited in the registry, is that the evidence shall be preserved ; 
that by registering you preserve the evidence; and hence that completes the 
filing, and that is all the evidence of filing that you need. But where this evi¬ 
dence is not preserved to show that it was registered then the burden of proof is 
shifted. 

Mr. Mumford. Yes, sir; I think the evidence could supply that. It is just 
simply a matter of proof: that is all. 

Mr. Clark. I just want to ask one more question: Now, in reference to this 
testimony taken at Beardstown and at Springfield- 

Mr. Mumford (interposing). I omitted that. I am glad you called my atten¬ 
tion to it. 

Mr. Clark. I just wanted to ask you what your objection was to the com¬ 
mittee considering that evidence? 

Mr. Mumford. Mr. Shaw had notice that the deposition of Mr. Rainey, to¬ 
gether with other important testimony, would be taken in the city of Wash¬ 
ington on the 28d of February. He had only one attorney. By some inad¬ 
vertence my partner’s name appears on some of the documents in this case, but 
I am the sole attorney of Mr. Shaw and have been all the time. It was con¬ 
sidered important that Mr. Shaw and his attorney should attend in Washington 
at the taking of the deposition of Mr. Rainey, and on the day of starting they 
served a notice on Mr. Shaw that at Beardstown on the 25th they would take 
the testimony of certain people. 

Now, I am aware that under certain conditions—necessary conditions— 
testimony may be taken at different places at the same time, but there is also a 
holding of the committee, cited in our brief, to the effect that that evidence will 
be excluded under certain conditions. 

Now, if Mr. Rainey were lacking in time to take this evidence; if there were 
any great rush about it, so that he had to take it when he did, I would under¬ 
stand that there would be no particular irregularity in doing that thing. But 
Beardstown is 1.000 miles from Washington, and to require Mr. Shaw to be in 
Washington on the 23d and to be in Beardstown on the 25th is an unreasonable 
requirement, and •under the authority cited in our brief we took the position 
then, and take the position now, that that testimony should not be considered. 
There was not any necessity for their doing that; they had an attorney, Mr. 
McCarron, in Washington, and they had Judge Dieterich in Beardstown; and 
while Mr. McCarron was taking evidence at Washington Judge Dieterich was 
taking evidence at Beardstown, and we think under the conditions that evidence 
ought not to be considered. 

By the way, evidence was taken in Springfield, it seems, on the same day that 
evidence was taken in Beardstown. Now, I want to say to the committee that 
I never heard of* any notice to that evidence in Springfield. If any notice of 
that kind was served on Mr. Shaw, I never heard of it; and I am advised that 
he never received any notice of the taking of testimony in Springfield and that 
that evidence was taken without any notice whatever. That is true, as far as 
I am concerned. I am sure. 

Mr. Clark. Well, if that is true, that evidence clearly ought not to be con¬ 
sidered. 

Mr. Mumford. Yes; I believe that is correct. I never heard of it until long 
after it was taken. 

Mr. Cable. I would like to ask you a question: Does the record show before 
whom these statements of expenditures were verified—what notary public or 
other official? 

Mr. Mumford. No, sir; Mr. Shaw did not state; he was not able to state. 
He said he could not remember whether he had made the affidavit in Jackson¬ 
ville or in Beardstown. He said they were verified—all of them were verified, 
but he could not remember the officer before whom the verification was taken. 

Mr. Cable. Another question: The law requires that these statements shall 
be filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives: and then provides 
that if the letter is stamped and registered it may be sent by mail. Now, does 
not the Latin phrase, “ Expressio unias est exclusio alterius,” or “ the expres¬ 
sion of one thing is the exclusion of others,” apply? In other words, “filing” 
means personally leaving at the clerks’s office; and if the law stopped there, that 
is the only way you could do it. But the law goes on a little further and pro¬ 
vides one additional way. Now, does that not exclude other ways? 



20 


RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


Mr. Mumfokd. I have not understood it to exclude anything else, but I have 
regarded it simply as a method of proof. If you register a package, you have 
written evidence of your registration. 

Mr. Clark. Well, you could do it another way, provided you consummated it? 

Mr. Mumfokd. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Clark. But suppose you adopted another way but did not consummate it; 
do you not take that risk when you do that? 

Mr. Mumfokd. Possibly so; but I have not regarded that as excluding the 
ordinary method of sending by mail. 

Mr. Cable. Of course, if it is registered, you are all right; but if not. you 
take the risk. 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; I think that is the point. The registry relieves you of 
proving that it was received, if you have got your registry receipt for it. In 
other words, if you have delivered it to the registry clerk, you have the evi¬ 
dence; you have the evidence of your registry receipt and you are not required 
to prove any more. 

Mr. Mumfokd. Y T es; that is correct. 

Mr. Cable. You have not said anything about the Newberry case. Do you 
care to say anything about that? 

Mr. Mumfokd. My understanding of the Newberry case is that it means what 
it says; that it means the statute is void- 

Mr. VvYlson (interposing). Well, as relates to a primary. 

Mr. Mumfokd. Well, I had not understood that to be the limitation of the 
Newberry case; but. undoubtedly, that is true of primary expenses; it could 
not be argued any other way. 

Mr. Wilson. I did not read it very closely, but I reached the conclusion, at 
least, that it was not intended to apply to the nominations of candidates. 

Mr. Mumfokd. If the effect of the Newberry case is to invalidate the act as 
applied by them to elections, and to primaries, then the situation of the case 
is that the committee and the House are relegated to the constitutional power 
of the House to regulate and control the membership of the House and the 
qualifications of Members. 

The Chairman. If you have finished we will now hear Mr. McCarron. 

CLOSING STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN F. McCARRON, WASHINGTON, 
X>. C., ATTORNEY FOR CONTESTANT. 

Mr. McCarron. Gentlemen, I want to reply to two or three things that have 
been brought up by counsel for the contestee. And before doing that I desire 
to call attention to the “ Congressional Globe, Appendix, Thirty-first Congress, 
second session; ” there is also the number “ 23 ” on this volume; that indicates 
something. It is dated December 2-March 3, 1S50-51, and I want to call your 
attention to pages 108 and 109, regarding the proceedings in the House of 
Representatives under date of Monday, December 23, 1850, when the bill, which 
is now the statute of 1851, was up for consideration in the House, and partic¬ 
ularly to an excerpt from the statement of Mr. Strong, who had charge of the 
bill, with regard to tics paragraph: 

“ The first section of the bill provides that when any individual intends to 
contest the election of another, he shall within 30 days after election give notice 
to the returned Member of his intention to contest it. That notice must be in 
writing and specify the objections which he makes to the return, and must 
set out all the allegations by which he intends to substantiate his own right to 
the seat. This notice must be served upon the returned Member. Within 30 
days from the service of the notice the returned Member is required by the 
second section of the bill to serve an answer upon the contestant, and in that 
answer he must either affirm or deny what is alleged by the contestant, and 
shall, in addition, set forth what he intends to rely upon to maintain his right 
to a seat.” 

That exovrpt speaks for itself. 

Now, gentlemen, I want to refer briefly to the depcs'tions taken at Spring- 
field and Beardstown. You will find in the original papers—and I hold a copy 
of them—that a notice of taking depositions, dated February 19, 1921, was 
addressed to Guy L. Shaw, Beardstown, Ill., as follows: 

“ Please take notice that on the 25th day of February, at the hour of 10 
o’clock a. m., at tiie office of Edmund Burke, at 2051 South Sixth Street, Spring- 
field, Ill., the deposition of Edward D. Keyes, president, and A. O. Peterson, 
cashier of the Ridgeley Farmers State Bank, of Springfield, Ill., and Esther 



RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


21 


Hanley, in this cause, will be taken before John P. Snigg, Esq., notary public 
in and for the county of Sangamon, State of Illinois, under the provisions of 
section 107 of the act of January 10. 1875, and section 2 of the act of March 2, 
1875, Revised Statutes of the United States. Taking of testimony will continue 
from day to day until completed, at which you may appear if you see fit. 

“ Edmund Burke, 

“Attorney for Henry T. Rainey, contestant. 


State of Illinois, County of Cass, ss: 

“ William Scullion, being first duly swtorn, on oath deposes and says that he 
duly served a copy of the foregoing notice on Guy L. Shaw on the 19th day of 
February, A. D., 1921, by personally delivering a copy of the same to said Guy 
L. Shaw. 

“ William Scullion. 

“ Signed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for Cass County, 
State of Illinois, this 22d of February, 1921. 

“ [seal.] George T. Saunders, 

“ Notary Public.” 

I also direct this committee’s attention to page 22 of the printed record 
and to these words: 

“ Mr. Mumford. Go back a moment, Mr. Shaw, to the depositions that were 
probably taken in Beardstown here on the 25th of February. Do you object 
to the receipt and consideration of those depositions by the committee? 

“A. Yes, sir; I do. 

“ Q. Do you propose, at the proper time and in the proper way, to suppress 
the depositions for the reasons indicated?”- 

Mr. Cable. Excuse me just a minute; you omitted two words: “Do you pro¬ 
pose to move,” it should be. 

Mr. McCarron. I did not do it intentionally; this light is not very good. 

“ Mr. Mumford. I would like to make a statement here. I want to say that 
Judge Dieterich here has advised me that under Mr. Rainey’s direction he will 
furnish me a copy of the evidence taken on the occasion referred to here and 
will recall the witnesses and consent that I cross-examine these witnesses. I 
think thqt will straighten that out, Judge. 

“ Mr. Dieterich. Yes, sir; that is all right.” 

I also desire to call your attention to the evidence given by Mr. G. W. Morton, 
referred to by counsel for the contestee, on page 43 of the record, in view of the 
fact that the name of Dr. Schweer, the postmaster at Beardstown, Ill., has been 
brought into this inquiry. Dr. Schweer is a man of character and standing in 
that community*; and by reason of this fact, and the fact that there may be 
some imnutation as to him, I want to read first the evidence given by Mr. Morton 
in regard to the statement which it is claimed that Dr. Schweer made in regard 
to the fact that Mr. Shaw would not go to Congress. 

“ Q. Do you know Dr. Schweer?—A. I do. 

“ Q. Postmaster at Beardstown ?— A. Yes, sir. 

“ Q. Did you at any time have any conversation with Dr. Schweer, post¬ 
master at Beardstown, in which he made any statement in regard to Mr. Shaw 
obtaining a seat in Congress or on that subject?—A. One day we were talking 
politics, some time in October, on the corner of State and Second Streets, and 
he said Mr. Shaw would never get to Congress. I believe that was the word— 
never get to Congress. 

“ Q. When was that, before or after the election?—A. Before the election. 

“Q. How long before?—A. A week or so; I don’t remember exactly. I just 
remember the conversation. 

“ Q. Did he give any further explanation of why he made that prediction?— 
A. No, sir.” 

Now, gentlemen, I direct your attention to the testimony given by Dr. 
Schweer, which you will find on pages 52 to 55, inclusive. On page 52 this 
interrogatory was asked Dr. Schweer: 

“ Did you know during the months of September, October, November, and 
December, 1920, that the law required a candidate for Congress to make a 
statement of his campaign expenses to anyone? 

“Answer. I did not. 




22 


RAINEY YS. SHAW. 


“15. Question. Did you know during the months of September, October,. 
November, and December, 1920. that a candidate for Congress should file a 
statement of expense with the Clerk of the House of Representatives at Wash¬ 
ington, D. C.? 

“Answer. I never did. 

M 16. Question. Did you know that there was a provision in the law by 
which a candidate for Congress could comply with the law by mailing a state¬ 
ment of his expenses, addressed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, 
prepaid and registered? 

“Answer. No, sir. 

“ 17. Question. Did you at any time after December, 1920, or during Decem¬ 
ber, 1920, obtain the knowledge that there was a law requiring a candidate for 
Congress making a statement of expense? 

“Answer. Yes, sir.” 

Now, with reference to the conversation with Mr. Morton: 

“ 21. Question. When did you first acquire the knowledge that a statement 
of that character should be filed with the Clerk of the House of Representa¬ 
tives ? 

“Answer. Here, about two weeks ago, when depositions were taken before 
D. M. Maney; that was the first knowledge I had that such a statement had 
to be mailed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.” 

Now, with reference to Dr. Schweer’s testimony with regard to the alleged 
conversation with Mr. Morton, I quote from the middle of page 53 of the 
record: 

“ 4. Cross-question. Did you ever have any political discussion or conversa¬ 
tion with him during the campaign? 

“Answer. I do not remember of any. 

“5. Cross-question. You are not able to say that you did not have any such 
conversation ? 

“Answer. I do not remember; but do not say that I did not discuss anything 
with him in a general way. 

“ 6. Cross-question. You knew, Dr. Schweer, that Mr. Morton was strongly 
supporting Mr. Shaw? 

“Answer. Not necessarily so. 

“7. Cross-question. Well, what did you mean, that you did not know? 

“Answer. No; I did not. 

“ 8. Cross-question. You, of course, were opposed to Mr. Shaw? 

“Answer. I was not working for him. 

“9. Cross-question. Were you working against him? 

“Answer. I was not.” 

Now, it seems to me, gentlemen, that the testimony of Dr. Schweer is very 
clear that he in no way had any knowledge in regard to the filing of any cam¬ 
paign statement by Mr. Shaw; and I submit that the record with respect to the 
testimony of Dr. Schweer should be carefully considered in connection with, 
the testimony of Mr. Morton, referred to by counsel for the contestee. 

I thank you, gentlemen, for your kindness. 

The Chairman. The hearing is declared to be closed. 

(Thereupon, at 12.10 o’clock p. m., the committee adjourned.) 


\ 


X 






















































































































Z/- i- AuMi. _ 

ST} 4 . SENATE 


67th Congress 
1st Session 


/Document 
\ No. 10 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


Opinion of the 

Supreme Court of the United States 

in the case of 

Truman H. Newberry et al. v. The United States 

together with the 

Opinions of Chief Justice White and 
Justice Pitney therein 



PRESENTED BY MR. LODGE 
May 4, 1921.—Ordered to be printed 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1921 









TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


OPINION OF THE COURT. 

[Supreme Court of the United States. No. 559. October term, 1920. Truman H. 

Newberry et al., plaintiffs in error, v. The United States of America. In error to 

the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan. May 

2,1921.1 

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court. 

Plaintiffs in error—Truman H. Newberry, Paul H. King, and 15 
others—were found guilty of conspiring (Criminal Code, sec. 37) to 
violate section 8, act of Congress approved June 25, 1910 (c. 392, 
36 Stat., 822-824), as amended by act of August 19, 1911 (c. 33, 37 
Stat., 25-29), the Federal corrupt practices act, which provides: 

No candidate for Representative in Congress or for Senator of the United States 
shall give, contribute, expend, use, or promise, or cause to be given, contributed, 
expended, used, or promised, in procuring his nomination and election, any sum, in 
the aggregate, in excess of the amount which he may lawfully give, contribute, ex¬ 
pend, or promise under the laws of the State in which he resides: Provided, That no 
candidate for Representative in Congress shall give, contribute, expend, use, or prom¬ 
ise any sum, in the aggregate, exceeding $5,000 in any campaign for his nomination 
and election; and no candidate for Senator of the United States shall give, contribute, 
expend, use, or promise any sum, in the aggregate exceeding $10,000 in any campaign 
for his nomination and election: Provided further, That money expended by any such 
candidate to meet and discharge any assessment, fee, or charge made or levied upon 
candidates by the laws of the State in which he resides, or for his necessary personal 
expenses, incurred for himself alone, for travel and subsistence, stationery and postage, 
writing or printing (other than in newspapers), and distributing letters, circulars, and 
posters, and for telegraph and telephone service, shall not be regarded as an expendi¬ 
ture within the meaning of this section, and shall not be considered any part of the sum 
herein fixed as the limit of expenses and need not be shown in the statements herein 
required to be filed. 

Act No. 109, Section I, Michigan Legislature, 1913, prohibits ex¬ 
penditure by or on behalf of a candidate, to be paid by him, in securing 
his nomination, of any sum exceeding 25 per cent of one year’s com¬ 
pensation; and puts like limitation upon expenditures to obtain elec¬ 
tion after nomination. Section I follows: 

Section I. No sums of money shall be paid, and no expenses authorized or incurred 
by or on behalf of any candidate to be paid by him in order to secure or aid in securing 
his nomination to any public office or position in this State, in excess of 25 per cent 
of one year’s compensation or salary of the office for which he is candidate: Provided, 
That a sum not exceeding 50 per cent of one year’s salary may be expended by the can¬ 
didates for governor and lieutenant governor; or where the office is that of member of 
either branch of the legislature of the State, the 25 per cent shall be computed on the 
salary fixed for the term of two years: Provided further, That no candidate shall be 
restricted to less than $100 in his campaign for such nomination. No sums of money 
shall be paid and no expense authorized or incurred by or on behalf of any candidate 
who has received the nomination to any public office or position in this State, in excess 
of 25 per cent of one year’s salary or compensation of the office for which he is nomi- 

3 




4 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


nated; or where the office is that of member of either branch of the legislature of the 
State, the 25 per cent shall be computed on the salary fixed for the term of two years: 
Provided , That no candidate shall be restricted to less than $100. No sum of money 
shall be paid and no expenses authorized or incurred by or on behalf of any candidate 
contrary to the provisions of this act. 

Taken with the State enactment, the Federal statute in effect 
declares a candidate for the United States Senate punishable by fine 
and imprisonment, if (except for certain specified purposes) he give, 
contribute, expend, use, promise or cause to be given, contributed, 
expended, used or promised in procuring his nomination and election 
more than $3,750—one-half of one year’s salary. Under the con¬ 
struction of the act urged by the Government and adopted by the 
court below it is not necessary that the inhibited sum be paid, prom¬ 
ised, or expended by the candidate himself, or be devoted to any 
secret or immoral purpose. For example, its open and avowed con¬ 
tribution and use by supporters upon suggestion by him or with his 
approval and cooperation in order to promote public discussion and 
debate touching vital questions or to pay necessary expenses of 
speakers, etc., is enough. And upon such interpretation the convic¬ 
tion below was asked and obtained. 

The indictment charges that Truman H. Newberry became a 
candidate for the Republican nomination for United States Senator 
from Michigan at the primary election held August 27, 1918; that 
by reason of selection and nomination therein he became a candi¬ 
date at the general election, November 5, 1918; that he and 134 
others (who are named) at divers times from December 1, 1917, 
to November 5, 1918, unlawfully and feloniously did conspire, 
combine, confederate, and agree together to commit the offense 
on his part of willfully violating the act of Congress approved June 
25, 1910, as amended, by giving, contributing, expending, and using, 
and by causing to be given, contributed, expended, and used, in 
procuring his nomination and election at said primary and general 
elections, a greater sum than the laws of Michigan permitted and 
above $10,000, to wit, $100,000, and on the part of the other defend¬ 
ants of aiding, counseling, inducing, and procuring Newberry as such 
candidate to give, contribute, expend, and use or cause to be given, 
contributed, expended, and used said large and excessive sum in order 
to procure his nomination and election. Plaintiffs in error were 
convicted under count 1: 

Count 1 .—That Truman H. Newberry, Chase S. Osborne, Henry Ford, and William 
B. Simpson, before and on Aug. 27, 1918, were candidates for the Republican nomi¬ 
nation for the office of Senator in the Congress of the United States from the State of 
Michigan at the primary election held in said State on that day under the laws of said 
State, and Henry Ford and James Helm, before and on said Aug. 27, 1918, were candi¬ 
dates for the Democratic nomination for the same office at said primary election; that 
from said Aug. 27, 1918, to and including Nov. 5, 1918, said Truman H. Newberry and 
said Henry Ford, by reason of their election and nomination at said primary election, 
became and were opposing candidates for election to the office of Senator in the Con¬ 
gress of the United States from said State of Michigan at the general election held in 
said State on said Nov. 5, 1918—said Truman H. Newberry of the Republican Party 
and said Henry Ford of the Democratic Party—each of said candidates having, on said 
Aug. 27, 1918, and on Nov. 5, 1918, attained to the age of 30 years and upward and been 
a citizen of the United States for more than nine years and each then being an inhabit¬ 
ant and resident of said State: and that said Truman H. Newberry, Paul H. King (and 
133 others), hereinafter called the defendants, continuously and at all and divers times 
throughout the period of time from Dec. 1, 1917, to and including said Nov. 5, 
1918, at and within said southern division of said western district of Michigan, unlaw¬ 
fully and feloniously did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together, and with 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


0 


divers other persons to said grand jurors unknown, to commit an offense against the 
United States, to wit, the offense on the part of said Truman H. Newberry of willfully 
violating the act of Congress approved June 25, 1910, as amended by the acts of Aug. 
19, 1911, and Aug. 23,1912, by giving, contributing, expending, and using, and by caus¬ 
ing to be given, contributed, expended, and used, in procuring his nomination and 
election as such Senator at said primary and general elections, a sum, in the aggregate, 
in excess of the amount which he might lawfully give, contribute, expend, or use, or 
cause to be given, contributed, expended, or used for such purpose under the laws of 
said State of Michigan, to wit, the sum of $100,000, and by giving, contributing, ex¬ 
pending, and using, and causing to be given, contributed, expended, and used in 
procuring his nomination and election as such Senator, at said primary and general 
elections, a sum in the aggregate, in excess of $10,000, to wit, said sum of $100,000, and 
on the part of said other defendants of aiding, counseling, inducing, and procuring 
said Truman H. Newberry so to give, contribute, expend, and use. and cause to be 
given, contributed, expended, and used, said large sum of monev in excess of the 
amounts permitted by the law's of the State of Michigan and the said acts of Congress; 
the same to be money so unlawfully given, contributed, expended, and used by said 
Truman H. Newberry and by him caused to be given, contributed, expended, and 
used as such candidate for the following and other purposes, objects, and things, to wit.: 
Advertisements in newspapers and other publications; print paper, cuts, plates, and 
other supplies furnished to newspaper publishers; subscriptions to newspapers; pro¬ 
duction, distribution, and exhibition of moving pictures; traveling and subsistence 
expenses of campaign managers, public speakers, secret propagandists, field, district, 
and county agents and solicitors, and of voters not infirm or disabled; compensation of 
campaign managers, public speakers, and secret propagandists, and of field, district, and 
county agents and solicitors; appropriating and converting to the use of the defendants 
themselves, and each of them, large sums of money under the guise and pretense of 
payment of their expenses and compensation for their services; rent of offices and pub¬ 
lic halls; bribery of election officials; unlawful assistance of election officials; bribery of 
voters; expenses and compensation of Democratic obstructionist candidates at the 
primary election; expenses and compensation of detectives; dinners, banquet, and 
other entertainments given to persons believed to be influential in said State of Michi¬ 
gan; and no part of which said money was to be money expended by said Truman 11. 
Newberry, as such candidate, to meet or discharge assessments, fees, or charges made 
or levied upon candidates by the laws of said State, or for his necessary personal ex¬ 
penses incurred for himself alone, for travel and subsistence, stationery and postage, 
writing or printing (other than in newspapers), or for distributing letters, circulars, or 
postage, or for telegraph or telephone service, or for proper legal expenses in maintain¬ 
ing or contesting the results of either of said elections. (Thirty-eight distinct and 
separate overt acts are specified.) 

And so the grand jurors af ores lid. upon their oaths aforesaid, do sa- r that said de¬ 
fendants continuously and at all and divers times throughout the period cf time in 
this count mentioned, at and within said division and district, in manner and form 
in this count aforesaid, unlawfully and feloniously did conspire to commit an offense 
against the United States, and certain of them did do acts to effect the object of the 
conspirac y against the peace and dignity of the United States and contrary to the form 
of the statute of the same in such case made and provided. 

The court below overruled a duly interposed demurrer which 
challenged the constitutionality of section 8; and by so doing we 
think fell into error. 

Manifestly, this section applies not only to final elections for 
choosing Senators but also to primaries and conventions of political 
parties for selection of candidates. Michigan and many other States 
undertake to control these primaries by statutes and give recognition 
to their results. And the ultimate question for solution here is 
whether under the grant of power to regulate “ the manner of holding 
elections” Congress may fix the maximum sum which a candidate 
therein may spend, or advise or cause to be contributed and spent by 
others to procure his nomination. 

Section 4, Article I, of the Constitution provides: 

The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives 
shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any 
time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators. 


6 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


Here is the source of congressional power over the elections speci¬ 
fied. It has been so declared by this court (Ex parte Siebold, 100 
U. S. 371; United States v. Gradwell, 243 U. S. 476, 481), and the 
early discussions clearly show that this was then the accepted opinion. 
(The Federalist. LVIII, LIX, LX; Elliot's Debates, Vol. II, 50, 73, 
311; Vol. Ill, 86, 183, 344, 375; Vol. IV, 75, 78, 211.) 

We find no support in reason or authority for the argument that, 
because the offices were created by the Constitution, Congress has 
some indefinite, undefined power over elections for Senators and 
Representatives not derived from section 4. 

The Government, then, of the United States, can claim no powers which are not 
granted to it by the Constitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as 
are expressly given, or given by necessarv implication. (Martin v. Hunter’s lessee, 
1 Wheat., 304, 326.) 

Clear constitutional provisions also negative any possible inference 
of such authority because of the supposed anomaly “if one govern¬ 
ment had the unrestricted power to control matters affecting the 
choice of the officers of another.” Mr. Iredell (afterwards of this 
court) in the North Carolina convention of 1788, pointed out that 
the States may—must, indeed—exert some unrestricted control over 
the Federal Government. 

The very existence of the General Government depends on that of the State gov¬ 
ernments. ' The State legislatures are to choose the Senators. Without a Senate there 
can be no Congress. The State legislatures are also to direct the manner of choosing 
the President. Unless, therefore, there are State legislatures to direct that manner, 
no President can be chosen. The same observation mav be made as to the House of 
Representatives, since, as they are to be chosen by the electors of the most numerous 
branch of each State legislature, if there are no State legislatures there are no persons 
to choose the House of Representatives. Thus it is evident that the very existence 
of the General Government depends on that of the State legislatures. (Elliot’s De¬ 
bates, Vol. IV, p. 78. See also The Federalist, XLIV.) 

The Federal features of our Government are so clear and have 
been so often declared that no valuable discussion can proceed upon 
the opposite assumption. 

Undoubtedly elections within the original intendment of section 4 
were those wherein Senators should be chosen by legislatures and 
Representatives by voters possessing “the qualifications requisite for 
electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.” (Art. 
I, secs. 2 and 3.) The seventeenth amendment, which directs that 
Senators be chosen bj( the people, neither announced nor requires a 
new meaning of election, and the word now has the same general 
significance as it did when the Constitution came into existence— 
final choic.e of an officer by the duly qualified electors. (Ilawke v. 
Smith, 253 U. S. 221.) Primaries were then unknown. Moreover, 
they are in no sense elections for an office, but merely methods by 
which party adherents agree upon candidates whom they intend to 
offer and support for ultimate choice by all qualified electors. Gen¬ 
eral provisions touching elections in constitutions or statutes are not 
necessarily applicable to primaries—the two things are radically dif¬ 
ferent. And this view has been declared by many State courts. 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


7 


(People v. Cavanaugh, 112 Cal. 674; State v. Erickson, 119 Minn. 152; 
State v. Taylor, 220 Mo. 617; State v. Woodruff, 68 N. J. L. 89; 
Commonwealth v. Wells, 110 Pa. 463; Ledgwood v. Pitts, 122 Tenn. 
570.)- . 

Sundry provisions of the Constitution indicate plainly enough 
what its framers meant by elections and the “manner of holding” 
them. “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Mem¬ 
bers chosen every second year by the people of the several States.” 
“No person shall be a Representative * * * who shall not when 

elected be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” 
“When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, 
the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill 
such vacancies.” “Immediately after they [the Senators] shall 
be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall he 
divided as equally as may be into three classes.” “No person 
shall he a Senator * * * who shall not, when elected, be an 

inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.” “Each 
House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifica¬ 
tions of its own Members.” “No Senator or Representative shall, 
during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil 
office,” etc. “The executive power shall be vested in a President 
of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during 
the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen 
for the same term, he elected as follows.” “The President shall, 
at stated times, receive for his services a compensation, which shall 
neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he 
shall have been elected.” And provisions in the seventeenth amend¬ 
ment are of like effect. 

The plain words of the seventeenth amendment, and those por¬ 
tions of the original Constitution directly affected by it, should be 
kept in mind. Article I, section 3; 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, 
chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. 
Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election they 
shall be divided as*equally as may be into three classes. * * * And if vacancies 
happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any State, 
the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of 
the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. 

Seventeenth amendment: 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, 
elected by the people thereof for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. 
The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the 
most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the 
representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall 
issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided , That the legislature of any 
State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointment until the 
people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment 
shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before 
it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. 

As finally submitted and adopted the amendment does not under¬ 
take to modify Article I, section 4, the source of congressional power 
to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding elections. That 


8 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 

section remains “ intact and applicable both to the election of Repre¬ 
sentatives and Senators.” (Cong. Rec., vol. 46, p. 848.) When 
first reported, January 11, 1911, by Senator Borab for the Judiciary 
Committee, the proposed seventeenth amendment contained a clause 
providing, “The times, places, and manner of holding elections for 
Senators shall be as prescribed in each State by the legislature 
thereof”—the avowed purpose being thereby to modify section 4, 
Article I, by depriving Congress of power to regulate the manner of 
holding elections for Senators. 1 

Upon recommendation of a minority of the Judiciary Committee 
this clause was eliminated and reference to section 4, Article I, omitted 
from the resolution. After prolonged debate in the Sixty-first and 
Sixty-second Congresses the amendment in its present form was sub¬ 
mitted for ratification. (See S. Rept. 961. 61st Cong., 3d sess., 
S. Rept. 35, 62d Cong., 1st sess.; Cong. Rec., vol. 46, pp. 847, 851, 
et seq., vol. 47 passim, and pp. 1924, 1925, 6366.) 

Apparently because deemed unimportant no counsel on either side 
referred to “An act providing a temporary method of conducting the 
nomination and election of United States Senators," approved June 
4, 1914 (Ch. 103, 38 Stat., 384). To show its irrelevancy and prevent 
misapprehension the act is copied below. 2 Section 2, which contains 
the only reference to nomination of candidates for Senator, expired 
b}^ express limitation June 4, 1917, more than a year prior to the 
conduct here challenged. The act has no criminal provisions, makes 
no reference to the earlier statute upon which this prosecution is 
founded and sheds no light on the power of Congress to regulate 
primaries and conventions. Its terms indicate intention that the 


1 A copy of the original resolution as presented to the Senate follows (S. J. Res. 134, 61st Cong., Cone. Rec. 
vol. 46, p. 847): 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled 
( two-thirds of each House concurring therein ), That in lieu of the first paragraph of section 3 of Article I of the 
Constitution of the United States, and in lieu of so much of paragraph 2 of the same section as relates to the 
filling of vacancies, and in lieu of all of paragraph 1 of section 4 of said Article I, in so far as same relates to 
any authority in Congress to make or alter regulations as to the times or manner of holding elections for 
Senators, the following be proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents 
and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States: 

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the 
people thereof for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have th e 
qualifications requisit e for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. 

"The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators shall be prescribed in each State by the 
legislature thereof. 

"When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of 
such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may 
empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by- 
election, as the legislature may direct. 

"This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before 
it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.’’ 

2 An act providing a temporary method of conducting the nomination and election of United States 
Senators: 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of A merica in Congress assembled, 
That at the regular election held in any State next preceding the expiration of the term for which any 
Senator was elected to represent such State in Congress, at which election a Representative to Congress is 
regularly by law to be chosen, a United States Senator from said State shall be elected by the people thereof 
for the term commencing on the 4th day of March next thereafter. 

Sec. 2. That in any State wherein a United States Senator is hereafter to be elected either at a general 
election or at any special election called by the executive authority thereof to fill a vacancy, until or unless 
otherwise specially provided by the legislature thereof, the nomination of candidates for such office not 
heretofore made shall be made, the election to fill the same conducted, and the result thereof determined, 
as near as may be in accordance with the laws of such State regulating the nomination of candidates for and 
election df Members at Large of the National House of Representatives: Provided, That in case no pro¬ 
vision is made in any State for the nomination or election of Representatives at Large, the procedure shall 
be in accordance with the laws of such State respecting the ordinary executive and administrative officers 
thereof who are elected by the vote of the people of the entire State: And provided further, That in any 
case the candidate for Senator receiving the highest number of votes shall be deemed elected. 

Sec. 3. That section 2 of this act shall expire by limitation at the end of three years from the date of its 
approval. 

Approved, June 4,1911. 




TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


9 


machinery for designating party candidates shall remain under State 
control. But in no view can an attempt to exercise power be treated 
as conclusive evidence that Congress possesses such power. Other¬ 
wise serious discussion of constitutional limitations must cease. 
Moreover, the criminal statute now relied upon antedates the seven¬ 
teenth amendment and must be tested by powers possessed at time 
of its enactment. An after-acquired power can not ex proprio vigore 
validate a statute void when enacted. (See Sutherland Stat. Constr., 
2d ed., Vol. I, sec. 107.) 

A concession that the seventeenth amendment might be applicable 
in this controversy if assisted by appropriate legislation would be 
unimportant since there is none. Section 2, act of June 4, 1914, had 
expired by express limitation many months before Newberry became 
a candidate, and counsel very properly disregarded it. 

Because deemed appropriate in order effectively to regulate the 
manner of holding general elections, this court has upheld Federal 
statutes providing for supervisors and prohibiting interference with 
them, declaring criminal failure by election officers to perform duties 
imposed by the State, and denouncing conspiracies to prevent voters 
from freely casting their ballots or having them counted. (Ex parte 
Seibold, 100 U. S. 371; ex parte Clarke, 100 U. S. 399; ex parte Yar¬ 
brough, 110 U. S. 651; in re Coy, 127 U. S. 731; United States v. 
Mosley, 238 U. S. 383.) These enactments had direct and immediate 
reference to elections by the people and decisions sustaining them do 
not control the present controversy. Congress clearly exercised its 
power to regulate the manner of holding an election when it directed 
that voting must be by written or printed ballot or voting machines. 
(Ch. 154, 30 Stat., 836.) 

Section 4 was bitterly attacked in the State conventions of 1787- 
1789 because of its alleged possible use to create preferred classes and 
finally to destroy the States. In defense, the danger incident to 
absolute control of elections by the States and the express limitations 
upon the power were dwelt upon. Mr. Hamilton asserted: 

The truth is that there is no method of securing to the rich the preference appre¬ 
hended, but by prescribing qualifications of property either for those who may elect 
or be elected. " But this forms no part of the power to be conferred upon the National 
Government. Its authority would be expressly restricted to the regulation of the 
times the places, and the manner of elections. The qualifications of the persons who 
may choose or be chosen, as has been remarked upon other occasions, are defined and 
fixed in the Constitution and are unalterable by the legislature. (The Federalist, 
LIX, LI.) 

The history of the times indicates beyond reasonable doubt that if 
the Constitution makers had claimed for this section the latitude we 
are now asked to sanction it would not have been ratified. (See 
Story on the Const., secs. 814 et seq.) 

Our immediate concern is with the clause which grants power by 
law 11 to regulate the manner of holding elections for Senators and 
Representatives”—not broadly to regulate them. As an incident to 
the grant there is, of course, power to make all laws which shall be 
necessary and proper for carrying it into effect. (Art. I, sec. 8.) 
Although the seventeenth amendment now requires Senators to be 
chosen by the people, reference to the original plan of selection by the 
legislatures may aid in interpretation. 


10 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


Who should participate in the specified elections was clearly indi¬ 
cated—members of State legislatures and those having— 

The qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State 
legislature. 

Who should he eligible for election was also stated: 

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of 25 years 
and been seven years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be 
an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. 

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the age of 30 years and 
been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be 
an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. 

Two Senators were allotted to each State, and the method was 
prescribed for determining the number of Representatives. Subject 
to these important limitations, Congress was empowered by law to 
regulate the times, places, and manner of holding the elections, except 
as to the places of choosing Senators. 11 These words are used without 
any veiled or obscure significance ” but in their natural and usual sense. 

If it be practically true that under present conditions a designated 
party candidate is necessary for an election—a preliminary thereto— 
nevertheless his selection is in no real sense part of the manner of 
holding the election. This does not depend upon the scheme by 
which candidates are put forward. Whether the candidate be offered 
through primary, or convention, or petition, or request of a few, or as 
the result of his own unsupported ambition does not directly affect 
the manner of holding the election. Birth must precede, but it is no 
part of either funeral or apotheosis. 

Many things are prerequisites to elections or may affect their out¬ 
come—voters, education, means of transportation, health, public 
discussion, immigration, private animosities, even the face and 
figure of the candidate; but authority to regulate the manner of 
holding them gives no right to control any of these. It is settled, 
e. g., that the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce 
does not reach whatever is essential thereto. Without agriculture, 
manufacture, mining, etc., commerce could not exist, but this fact 
does not suffice to subject them to the control of Congress. (Kidd v. 
Pearson, 128 U. S., 1.) 

Election of Senators by State legislatures presupposed selection of 
their members by the people; but it would hardly be argued that 
therefore Congress could regulate such selection. In the Constitu¬ 
tional Convention of 1787, when replying to the suggestion that State 
legislatures should have uncontrolled power over elections of Members 
of Congress, Mr. Madison said: 

It seems as improper in principle, though it might be less inconvenient in practice, 
to give to the State legislatures this great authority over the election of the Repre¬ 
sentatives of the people in the General Legislature as it would be to give to the latter 
a like power over the election of their representatives in the State legislatures. (Sup¬ 
plement to Elliot’s Debates, Vol. Y, p. 402.) 

We can not conclude that authority to control party primaries 
or conventions for designating candidates was bestowed on Congress 
by the grant of power to regulate the manner of holding elections. 
The fair intendment of the words does not extend so far; the framers 
of the Constitution did not ascribe to them any such meaning. 
Nor is this control necessary in order to effectuate the power ex- 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


11 


pressly granted. On the other hand, its exercise would interfere 
with purely domestic affairs of the State and infringe upon liber¬ 
ties reserved to the people. 

It .should not be forgotten that, exercising inherent police power, 
the State may suppress whatever evils may be incident to primary 
or convention. As “Each House shall he the judge of the elections, 
qualifications, and returns of its own Members,” and as Congress 
may by law regulate the times, places, and manner of holding elec¬ 
tions, the National Government is not without power to protect 
itself against corruption, fraud, or other malign influences. 

The judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause 
remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. 

Reversed. 

Mr. Justice McKenna concurs in this opinion as applied to the 
statute under consideration which was enacted prior to the seven¬ 
teenth amendment; but he reserves the question of the power of 
Congress under that amendment. 


OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. 


Mr. Chief Justice White, dissenting from the opinion, but con¬ 
curring with a modification in the judgment of reversal: 

The conviction and sentence under review were based on an in¬ 
dictment charging a conspiracy to commit violations of the act of 
Congress known as the corrupt practices act as made applicable to 
State laws dealing with State nominating primaries for and the 
ensuing State elections of United States Senators and Representa¬ 
tives in Congress. The case is here by direct appeal because of the 
contention that primaries of that character are not subject to the 
regulating power of Congress, and as an incident there is involved 
the contention, that even if the act of Congress was constitutional 
it had been prejudicially misconstrued. Sustaining the first of these 
contentions and therefore deciding the act to be unconstitutional, 
the court reverses and finally disposes of the case. Although I am 
unable to concur in the conclusion as to the want of power of Con¬ 
gress and in the judgment of reversal as rendered, I am nevertheless 
of opinion that there should be a judgment of reversal without 
prejudice to a new trial because of the grave misapprehension and 
grievous misapplication of the statute upon which the conviction 
and sentence below were based. I state the reasons which control 
me as to both these subjects. 

By an amendment to the corrupt practices act of 1910 Congress, 
in 1911, dealt with State primaries for the nomination of Senators 
and Representatives in Congress and with the election after nomina¬ 
tion of such candidates. (Act of June 25, 1910, . c. 392, 36 Stat., 
822; act of Aug. 19, 1911, c. 33, sec. 8, 37 Stat., 25, 28.) At that 
time there existed in the State of Michigan a law regulating State 
nominating primaries which included candidates for State offices as 
well as for the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States. These primaries were held in the month of August in each 
year preceding the November general election. By that law the 
result of the primaries determined the right to have a person’s name 
placed as a candidate on the ballot at the general election, and in 
the case of United States Senators provision was made for the 
return of the result of the primary to the State legislature before the 
time when the duty of that body to elect a Senator would arise. 

The seventeenth amendment to the Constitution providing for 
the election of United States Senators by popular vote was promul¬ 
gated in May, 1913. In June, 1914, Congress by legislation carry¬ 
ing out the amendment provided that thereafter Senators should be 
elected by popular vote, and, where State.laws to that effect existed, 
made them applicable. But, evidently to give time for the States 
to enact the necessary legislation substituting for election by the 
legislature the method of election established by the amendment, it 
was provided that where no law for primaries by popular vote as 
to Senators existed that subject should be controlled by the State 
law regulating primaries for the nomination of Representatives at 
large, if provided for, and if not, by the provisions controlling as 
12 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


13 


to primaries for general State officers, the operation of these latter 
provisions being expressly limited to a term of three years. (Act 
of June 4, 1914, c. 103, 38 Stat., 384.) Within the time thus fixed 
and before the election which was held of this case, the State of 
Michigan, in order to conform its laws to the amendment, modified 
them so as to provide for the election of Senators by popular vote, 
and made the general nominating State primary law applicable to 
that condition (Act No. 156, Mich. Acts of 1915), and by virtue of 
the amendment, the act of Congress, and the State law just stated, 
the primary with which we are concerned in this case was held in 
August, 1918. 

The plaintiff in error, Newberry, was a candidate for the nomina¬ 
tion of the Republican Party as United States Senator and having 
been nominated at such primary became a candidate at the ensuing 
November election, and was returned as elected. Subsequently the 
indictment under which the conviction below was had was pre¬ 
sented charging him and others in six counts with a conspiracy to 
commit violations of provisions of the corrupt practices act relating 
to State nominating primaries as well as to the resulting general 
election. It is not at this moment necessary to describe the nature 
of these accusations further, since it is not questioned that the 
indictment charged a conspiracy to commit crimes within the intend¬ 
ment of the corrupt practices act and hence involved the question 
of the constitutional power of Congress which the court now ad¬ 
versely decides and the basis for which I now come to consider. 

As the nominating primary was held after the adoption of the 
seventeenth amendment, the power must have been sanctioned by 
that amendment: but for the purpose of clarity I consider the 
question of the power, first, from the provisions of the Constitution 
as they existed before the amendment, and, second, in contemplation 
of the light thrown upon the subject by the force of the amendment. 

The provisions of sections 2 and 3 of Article I of the Constitu¬ 
tion fixing the composition of the House of Representatives and of 
the Senate and providing for the election of Representatives by 
vote of the people of the several States and of Senators by the State 
legislatures, were undoubtedly reservoirs of vital Federal power con¬ 
stituting the generative sources of the provisions of section 4, clause 
1, of the same article creating the means for vivifying the bodies 
previously ordained (Senate and House); that is, providing: 

The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representa¬ 
tives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress 
may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of 
choosing Senators. 

As without this grant no State power on the subject was pos¬ 
sessed, it follows that the State power to create primaries as to 
United States Senators depended upon the grant for its existence. 
It also follows that as the conferring of the power on the States 
and the reservation of the authority in Congress to regulate being 
absolutely coterminous, except as to the place of choosing Senators, 
which is not here relevant, it results that nothing is possible of 
being done under the former which is not subjected to the limita¬ 
tion imposed by the latter. And this is illustrated by the legis¬ 
lation of Congress and the decisions of this court upholding the 
same. (See “Act to regulate the times and manner of holding 


14 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


elections for Senators in Congress,” approved July 25, 1866, 14 Stat., 
243; act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat., 144; act of July 14, 1870, 16 
Stat., 254; act of June 10, 1872, 17 Stat., 347; Ex parte Seibold, 
100 U. S., 371; Ex parte Clarke, 100 U. S., 399; Ex parte Yarbrough, 
110 U. S., 651; United States v. Mosely, 238 U. S., 383.) 

But it is said that, as the power which is challenged here is the 
right of a State to provide for and regulate a State primary for 
nominating United States Senators free from the control of Con¬ 
gress, and not the election of such Senators, therefore, as the nomi¬ 
nating primary is one thing and the election another and different 
thing, the power of the State as to the primary is not governed by 
the right of Congress to regulate the times and manner of electing 
Senators. But the proposition is a suicidal one, since it at one and 
the same time retains in the State the only power it could possibly 
have as delegated by the clause in question and refuses to give effect 
to the regulating control which the clause confers on Congress as 
to that very power. And mark, this is emphasized by the consid¬ 
eration that there is no denial here that the States possess the power 
over the Federal subject resulting from the provision of the Consti¬ 
tution, hut a holding that Congress may not exert as to such power 
to regulate authority which the terms of the identical clause of the 
Constitution confer upon it. 

But, putting these contradictions aside, let me test the contention 
from other and distinct points of view: (1) In last analysis the 
contention must rest upon the proposition that there is such abso¬ 
lute want of relation between the power of Government to regulate 
the right of the citizen to seek a nomination for a public office and 
its authority to regulate the election after nomination, that a para¬ 
mount Government authority having the right to regulate the latter 
is without any power as to the former. The influence of who is 
nominated for elective office upon the result of the election to fill 
that office is so known of all men that the proposition may be left 
to destroy itself by its own statement. 

(2) Moreover tne proposition, impliedly at least, excludes from 
view the fact that the powers conferred upon Congress by the Con¬ 
stitution carry with them the right “ to make all laws which shall be 
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing 
powers” (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 18), and in doing so virtually disregards 
the previous legislative history and the decisions of this court sanc¬ 
tioning the same, to which we have referred, since that practice and 
those decisions unmistakably recognize that the power under the clause 
in question extends to all the prerequisite and appropriate incidents 
necessary to the discharge of the authority given. 

(3) From a somewhat different point of view' the same result is 
even more imperatively required. Thus, as has been seen, the elec¬ 
tion was had under the seventeenth amendment to the Constitution, 
providing for the election of Senators by popular vote instead of by 
the State legislatures. In the resolution providing for the passage 
of that amendment through Congress, as first reported by Senator 
Borah on behalf of the Judiciary Committee, after making the changes 
necessary to substitute a provision causing Senators to be elected by 
popular vote instead of by the legislatures of the several States, the 
provision of section 4 of Article I reserving to Congress the power 
“to make or alter,” except as to places, the regulations adopted by 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


15 


the several States as to the “times, places, and manner” of electing 
Senators, was omitted, thus leaving all power on the subject in the 
States, free from any regulating control of Congress. (S. Kept. 961, 
61st Cong., 3d sess.) 

There was division, however, concerning the matter, manifested by 
a proposition to amend the resolution, as reported, so as to retain 
the omitted provision, thus preserving the power of Congress as 
originally conferred. (Cong. Rec., vol. 46, pt. 1, p. 847.) The legis¬ 
lative situation thus created was aptly stated by Senator Borah, 
referring to the report of the committee and to the proposition (sub¬ 
mitted by Senator Sutherland of Utah) to amend that report and the 
resolution accompanying it. He said: 

In reference to the amendment which has been suggested by the Senator from 
Utah [Mr. Sutherland], it was considered at some length before the committee. The 
proposition is a simple one. As the joint resolution now stands, the times, places, and 
manner of electing United States Senators is left entirely to the State. The State 
may determine the rules and regulations, and the times, places, and manner of holding 
elections for United States Senators. 

If the amendment as offered by the Senator from Utah should prevail, then the 
matter would be left as it now is, subject to the supervision and control of Congress. 
(Cong. Rec., vol. 46, pt. 1, p. 851.) 

After much consideration the amendment offered by Senator 
Sutherland was carried. (Cong. Rec., vol. 46, pt. 4, p. 3307.) But 
the reported resolution, as thus amended, did not pass during that 
Congress. In the first session of the following Congress, however, 
the Sixty-second Congress, a resolution identical in terms with the 
one which had been reported in the Senate at the previous session 
was introduced in the House and passed the same. (H. Rept. No. 2, 
62d Cong., 1st sess.) In the Senate the House resolution was favor¬ 
ably reported from the committee by Senator Borah (Cong. Rec., vol. 
47, pt. 1, p. 787), accompanied, however, by a minority report by 
Senator Sutherland (S. Rept. No. 35, 62d Cong., 1st sess.), offering 
as a substitute a resolution preserving the complete power of Con¬ 
gress, as had been provided for in the Senate in the previous Congress, 
and an amendment to the same effect offered by Senator Bristow was 
subsequently adopted (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, pt. 2, p. 1205), and as 
thus amended the resolution was ultimately submitted for ratifica¬ 
tion, and, as we have seen, was ratified and promulgated. (38 Stat., 
2049.) 

When the plain purpose of the amendment is thus seen, and it is 
borne in mind that at the time it was pending, the amendment to the 
corrupt practices act dealing with State primaries for nominating 
United States Senators which is now before us was in the process of 
consideration in Congress, and when it is further remembered that 
after the passage of the amendment Congress enacted legislation so 
that the amendment might be applied to State senatorial primaries, 
there would seem to be an end to all doubt as to the power of Congress. 

It is not disputable that originally instructions to representatives 
in State legislatures by party conventions or by other unofficial 
bodies, as to the persons to be elected as United States Senators, were 
resorted to as a means of indirectly controlling that subject and thus, 
in a sense, restricting the constitutional provision as to the mode 
of electing Senators. The potentiality of instructions of that char¬ 
acter to accomplish that result is amply shown by the development 
of our constitutional institutions as regards the electoral college, 


16 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


where it has come to pass that the unofficial nomination of party has 
rendered the discharge of its duties by the electoral college a mere 
matter of form. That in some measure at least a tendency to that 
result came about under the constitutional direction that Senators 
should be elected by the people would appear not doubtful. The 
situation on this subject is illustrated by a statement in a treatise by 
Haynes on “Election of Senators/’ 1906, page 132, as follows: 

Notwithstanding our rigid Constitution’s decree that the Senators from the several 
States shall be elected by “the legislatures thereof,” this act of the legislatures may 
be deprivedfof nearly all of its vitality. The election of President offers an illustra¬ 
tion of the filching of actual power away from the electors in whom it is vested by law. 
When James Russell Lowell, a Republican elector for Massachusetts in 1876, was urged 
to exercise his independence and vote for Tilden, he declined, saying that “what¬ 
ever the first intent of the Constitution was, usage had made the presidential electors 
strictly the instruments of the party which chose them.” The Constitution remains 
unchanged, yet presidential electors recognize that they haA^e been stripped of all 
discretion. It appears that under certain conditions the election of senators by State 
legislatures has been and can be made an equally perfunctory affair. 

The growth of the tendency to make the indirect result thus stated 
more effective evidently was the genesis of the statutory primary 
to nominate Senators. See statement concerning an amendment to 
the constitution of Nebraska on that subject as early as 1875, in the 
same treatise (p. 141). 

The large number of States which at this day have by law estab¬ 
lished senatorial primaries shows the development of the movement 
which originated so long ago under the circumstances just stated. 
They serve to indicate the tenacity of the conviction that the relation 
of the primary to the election is so intimate that the influence of the 
former is largely determinative of the latter. I have appended in 
the margin a statement from a publication on the subject, 3 showing 
how well founded this conviction is and how T it has come to pass that 
in some cases at least the result of the primary has been in substance 
to render the subsequent election merely perfunctory. Under these 
conditions I find it impossible to say that the admitted power of 
Congress to control and regulate the election of Senators does not 
embrace, as appropriate to that power, the authority to regulate the 
primary held under State authority. 

(4) It is true that the plenary reservation in Congress of the power 
to control the States in the exercise of the authority to deal with the 
times, places, and manner of electing Senators and Representatives, 
as originally expressed in the Constitution, caused much perturbation 
in the conventions of the several States which were called upon to 
consider ratification, resulting from the fear that such power to 
regulate might be extended to and embrace the regulation of the 


tt TUlU w £ stern an(l southern States the direct primary method has been applied to the choice of 
States Senators as well as to State officers. [On this general topic, see the excellent treatise on 
Ihe Election of Senators, by George H. Haynes (1906), especially Chap. XI.] In the Southern States, 
victory m such a primary, on the Democratic side, is practically the equivalent of an election, as there is 
but one effective party in that section of the country. The direct nomination of senators is generally 
accomplished under voluntary party regulations, as in Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Virginia. 
In othe.r cases, however, this method of choice has been placed under legal protection, as in Florida (1901I 
Mississippi (1902), Louisiana (1906), and Texas (1907). Some northern States have also adopted this 
method of direct nomination. Among northern States, Wisconsin led the way in 1903, followed bv Ore¬ 
gon m 1904, Montana in 1905, Iowa, Washington. Nebraska, North Dakota in 1907, Illinois, Kansas, New 
Jersey, Ohio, and Oklahoma in 1908. * * * In some of the States, as in Oregon, candidates for the 
legislature are afforded an opportunity to pledge themselves to vote for the party candidate receiving the 
mghost vote in the regular election. In other cases a pledge is made to vote for the candidate receiving 
n l 1 /U er °J U te l m the ; pnmary. [Oregon, 1904. sec. 13. In Washington the candidate mav 
?Er V °- 6 fo b> the Party choice for United States senator (1907, sec. 31). This latter is the 
general rule.] (Mernam, Primary Elections, 1908, pp. 83-85.) 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


17 


election of the members of the State legislatures who were to exercise 
the power to elect Senators. It is further true that articles in the 
Federalist and other papers published at the time served to dispel 
the fear by directing attention to the fact that the regulating power 
of Congress only extended to the times, places, and manner of electing 
Senators and did not include an authority, even by implication, to 
deal with the election of the State legislatures, which was a power 
reserved to the States. But this only served to emphasize the dis¬ 
tinction between the State and Federal power and affords no ground 
at this late day for saying that the reserved State power has absorbed 
and renders impossible of exercise the authority of Congress to 
regulate the Federal power concerning the election of United States 
Senators, submitted, to the extent provided, to the authority of the 
States upon- the express condition that such authority should be 
subordinate to and controlled by congressional regulation. 

Can any other conclusion be upheld except upon the theory that 
the phantoms of attenuated and unfounded doubts concerning the 
meaning of the Constitution, which have long perished, may now be 
revived for the purpose of depriving Congress of the right to exert 
a power essential to its existence, and this in the face of the fact that 
the only basis for the doubts which arose in the beginning (the elec¬ 
tion of Senators by the State legislatures) has been completely 
removed by the seventeenth amendment ? 

I do not stop to refer to the State cases concerning the distinction 
between State legislative power to deal with elections and its au¬ 
thority to control primaries, as I can not discover the slightest 
ground upon which they could be apposite, since here an inherent 
Federal right and the provision of the Constitution in dealing with 
it are the subjects for consideration. 

Moreover, in passing, I observe that as this case concerns a State 
primary law imposing obligatory results, and the act of Congress 
dealing with the same, it is obvious that the effect of individual 
action is wholly beside the issue. 

The consequence to result from a denial to Congress of the right 
to regulate is so aptly illustrated by the case in hand that in leaving 
the question I refer to it. Thus, it is stated and not denied that in 
the State primary in question, one of the candidates, as permitted 
by the State law," propounded himself at the primary election as the 
candidate for the nomination for Senator of both the Republican 
and the Democratic Parties. If the candidacy had been successful 
as to both, the subsequent election would have been reduced to the 
merest form. 

In view, then, of the plain text of the Constitution, of the power 
exerted under it from the beginning, of the action of Congress in its 
legislation, and of the amendment to the Constitution, as well as of 
the legislative action of substantially the larger portion of the States, 
I can see no reason for now denying the power of Congress to regulate 
a subject which from its very nature inheres in and is concerned with 
the election of Senators of the United States, as provided by the 
Constitution. 

The indictment,remains to be considered. It contained six counts. 
For the moment it suffices to say that the first four all dealt with a 
common subject; that is, a conspiracy between Newberry and others 

S. Doc. 10, 67-1-2 


18 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


named to contribute and expend, for the purpose of the State pri¬ 
mary and general election, more money than allowed by the corrupt 
practices act. The fifth count charged a conspiracy on the part of 
the defendants to commit a great number, to wit, 1,000, offenses 
against the United States, each to consist of giving money and things 
of value to a person vote for Newberry at said election, and a great 
number, to wit, 1,000, other offenses against the United States, 
each to consist of giving money and things of value to a person to 
withhold his vote from Henry Ford at said general election. The 
sixth count charged a conspiracy to defraud by use of the mails. 

At the trial, before the submission of the case to the jury, the 
court put the fifth count entirely out of the case by instructing the 
jury to disregard it, as there was no evidence whatever to sustain it. 
The bribery charge, therefore, disappeared. The second, third, and 
fourth counts, dealing, as I have said, with one general subject, 
were found by the court to be all in substance contained in the first 
count. They were, therefore, by direction of the court, either elimi¬ 
nated or consolidated with the first count. Thus, as contained in 
that count the matters charged in the first four counts were sub¬ 
mitted to the jury, as was also the sixth count; but the latter we 
need not further consider, as upon it there was a verdict of not guilty. 

The case therefore reduces itself solely to the matters covered in 
the first count. That count charged a conspiracy on the part of 
the defendants, 135 in number, including Newberry, to commit an 
offense against the United States—that is, the offense on the part of 
Newberry of violating the corrupt practices act—hy giving, contrib¬ 
uting, expending, and using and by causing to be given, contributed, 
expended, and used, in procuring his nomination and election as 
such Senator at said primary and general elections, a sum in excess 
of the amount which ne might lawfully give, contribute, expend, or 
use, and cause to be given, contributed, expended, or used for such 
purpose under the laws of Michigan, and in excess of $10,000, to wit, 
the sum of $100,000; and on the part of the other defendants of aid¬ 
ing, counseling, inducing, and procuring Newberry as such candidate 
to give, contribute, expend, and use, or cause to be given, contrib¬ 
uted, expended, or used, said large and excessive sum, in order to 
procure his nomination and election. 

Conspiracy to contribute and expend in excess of the amount per¬ 
mitted by the statute was, then, the sole issue, wholly disassociated 
from and disconnected with any corrupt or wrongful use of the amount 
charged to have been illegally contributed and expended. As put¬ 
ting out of view the constitutional question already considered, the 
errors assigned are based solely upon asserted misconstructions of 
the statute by the court in its charge to the jury, we bring the statute 
at once into view. It provides, so far as relevant to the case before us: 

No candidate for * * * Senator of the United States shall give, contribute, 
expend, use, or promise, or cause to be given, contributed, expended, Used, or 
promised, in procuring his nomination and election, any sum, in the aggregate, in 
excess of the amount which he may lawfully give, contribute, expend, or promise 
under the laws of the State in which he resides: Provided , That * * * no candidate 
for United States Senator shall give, contribute, expend, use, or promise any sum, 
in the aggregate, exceeding ten thousand dollars in any campaign for his nomination 
and election: * * * 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


19 


Coming to deal with the statute, the court, after pointing out in 
the most explicit terms that the limitation on the amount which 
might be lawfully contributed and expended or caused to be con¬ 
tributed and expended in the case at hand was $3,750 (that being 
the limitation imposed by the laws of Michigan adopted by the 
statute of the United States just quoted), then proceeded, over ob¬ 
jections duly reserved, to instruct as to the significance of the statute, 
involved in the prohibitions, (a) against giving, contributing, ex¬ 
pending, or using, and (6) against causing to be given, contributed, 
expended, or used, money in excess of that permitted by the statute, 
saying on these subjects as follows: 

(a) It is important, therefore, that you should understand the meaning of the 
language employed in this corrupt practices act, and that you should understand 
and comprehend the effect and scope of the act, and the meaning of the language 
there employed, and the effect and scope and extent of the prohibition against the 
expenditure and use of money therein contained. 

The words “give, contribute, expend, or use,” as employed in this statute, have 
their usual and ordinary significance, and mean furnish, pay out, disburse, employ, 
or make use of. The term “to cause to be expended, or used,” as it is employed in 
this statute, means to occasion, to effect, to bring about, to produce the expenditure 
and use of the money. 

The prohibition contained in this statute against the expenditure and use of money 
by the candidate is not limited or confined to the expenditure and use of his own 
money. The prohibition is directed against the use and expenditure of excessive 
sums of money by the candidate from whatever source or from whomsoever those 
moneys may be derived. 

(b) The phrase which constitutes the prohibition against the candidate “causing 
to be given, contributed, expended, or used excessive sums of money” is not limited 
and not confined to expenditures and use of money made directly and personally 
by himself. This prohibition extends to the expenditure and use of excessive sum 
of money in which the candidate actively participates, or assists, or advises, or directs 
or induces, or procures. The prohibition extends not only to the expenditure and use 
of excessive sums of money by the candidate directly and personally, but to such 
use and expenditure through his agency, or procurement, or assistance. 

To constitute a violation of this statute knowledge of the expenditure and use of 
excessive sums of money on the part of the candidate is not sufficient; neither is it 
sufficient to constitute a violation of this statute that the candidate merely, acquiesces 
in such expenditures and use. But it is sufficient to constitute a violation of this 
statute if the candidate actively participates in doing the things which occasion such 
expenditures and use of money and so actively participates with knowledge that the 
money is being expended and used. 

Having thus fixed the meaning of the prohibitions of the statute, 
the court came to apply them as thus defined to the particular case 
before it, saying: 

j(c) To apply these rules to this case: If you are satisfied from the evidence that 
the defendant. Truman H. Newberry, at or about the time that he became a candi¬ 
date for United States Senator was informed and knew that his campaign for the 
nomination and election would require the expenditure and use of more money 
than is permitted by law and with such knowledge became a candidate, and there¬ 
after, by advice, by conduct, by his acts, by his direction, by his counsel, or by 
his procurement he actively participated and took part in the expenditure and use 
of an excessive sum of money, of an unlawful sum of money, you would be warranted 
in finding that he did violate this statute known as the corrupt practices act. 

Whether the instructions marked (a) and ( b ), if unexplained, were, 
in view of the ambiguity lurking in many of the expressions used 
therein, prejudicially erroneous, I do not think necessary to con¬ 
sider, since I see no escape from the conclusion that the instruction 
marked (c), which made application of the view of the statute stated 
in the previous passages (a) and (5), were in clear conflict with the 
text of the statute and were necessarily of a seriously prejudicial 


20 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


nature, since in substance they announced the doctrine that, under 
the statute, although a candidate for the office of Senator might not 
have contributed a cent to the campaign or caused others to do so, 
he nevertheless was guilty if he became a candidate Or continued as 
such after acquiring knowledge that more than $3,750 had been 
contributed and was being expended in the campaign. The error in 
the instruction plainly resulted from a failure to distinguish between 
the subject with which the statute dealt—contributions and expendi¬ 
tures made or caused to be made by the candidate—and campaign 
contributions and expenditures not so made or caused to be made, 
and therefore not within the statute. 

There can be no doubt when the limitations as to expenditure 
which the statute imposed are considered in the light of its context 
and its genesis, that its prohibitions on that subject were intended, 
not to restrict the right of the citizen to contribute to a campaign, 
but to prohibit the candidate from contributing and expending or 
causing to be contributed and expended, to secure his nomination 
and election a larger amount than the sum limited as provided in the 
statute. To treat the candidacy, as did the charge of the court, as 
being necessarily the cause, without more, of the contribution of the 
citizen to the campaign, was therefore to confound things which 
were wholly different, to the frustration of the very object and pur¬ 
pose of the statute. To illustrate: Under the instruction given, in 
every case where to the knowledge of the candidate a sum in excess 
of the amount limited by the statute was contributed by citizens to 
the campaign, the candidate, if he failed to withdraw, would be 
subject to criminal prosecution and punishment. So, also, contribu¬ 
tions by citizens to the expenses of the campaign, if only knowledge 
could be brought home to them that the aggregate of such contribu¬ 
tions would exceed the limit of the statute, would bring them, as 
illustrated by this case, within the conspiracy statute and accord¬ 
ingly subject to prosecution. Under this view the greater the public 
service and the higher the character of the candidate, giving rise to 
a correspondingly complete and self-sacrificing support by the elec¬ 
torate to his candidacy, the more inevitably would criminality and 
infamous punishment result both to the candidate and to the citizen 
who contributed. 

As it follows from the considerations which I have stated that the 
judgment below was, in my opinion, clearly wrong and therefore 
should be reversed, it is not necessary that I should go further and 
point out how cogently under the case presented the illustrations just 
previously made apply to it. For the reasons stated, although I 
dissent from the ruling of the court as to the unconstitutionality of 
the act of Congress, I, nevertheless, think its judgment of reversal 
should be adopted, qualified, however, so as to reserve the right to a 
new trial. 


OPINION DELIVERED BY JUSTICE PITNEY. 


Mr. Justice Pitney, concurring in part: 

I concur in the judgment reversing the conviction of plaintiffs in 
error, but upon grounds fundamentally different from those adopted 
by the majority: my view being that there is no constitutional in¬ 
firmity in the act of Congress that underlies the indictment, but that 
there was an error in the submission of the case to the jury that calls 
for a new trial. 

The constitutional question is so important that it deserves treat¬ 
ment at length. 

The Federal corrupt practices act (act of June 25, 1910, ch. 392, 
36 Stat., 822; amended by act of Aug. 19, 1911, ch. 33, 37 Stat., 25, 
28) limits the amount of money that may be given, contributed, ex¬ 
pended, used, or promised, or caused to be given, contributed, ex¬ 
pended, used, or promised by a candidate for Representative in Con¬ 
gress or for Senator of the United States in procuring his nomination 
and election, to a sum not in excess of the amount he may lawfully 
give, contribute, expend, or promise under the laws of the State of his 
residence; with a proviso that in the case of a candidate for Repre¬ 
sentative the amount shall not exceed $5,000, and in the case of a 
candidate for Senator shall not exceed $10,000, in any campaign for 
nomination and election; and a further proviso that any assessment, 
fee, or charge made or levied upon candidates by the laws of the State, 
or moneys expended for the candidate’s necessary personal expenses 
for travel and subsistence, stationery and postage, writing, or printing 
(other than in newspapers), and distributing letters, circulars, and 
posters, and for telegraph and telephone service, shall not be regarded 
as an expenditure or considered as a part of the sum fixed as the limit 
of expense. Section 10 of the act (36 Stat., 824), renumbered as sec¬ 
tion 11 by the amendment (37 Stat., 26), prescribes fine or imprison¬ 
ment for a willful violation of any of its provisions. The act and 
amendment were passed before the adoption of the seventeenth 
amendment, providing for the election of Senators by direct vote of 
the people (declared adopted May 31, 1913, 38 Stat., 2049); but it is 
clear—indeed undisputed—that, for present purposes, they are to 
receive the same construction and effect as if enacted after adoption 
of the amendment. 

The present case arose out of a campaign for nomination and 
election of a Senator in the State of Michigan, where a statute (Act 
No. 109, sec. 1, Mich. Pub. Acts, 1913) limits the amount of money 
that may be paid, and of expenses that may be authorized or in¬ 
curred by or on behalf of any candidate to be paid by him in order to 
secure his nomination to any public office in the State, to 25 per cent 
of one year’s salary of the office, and imposes a similar limit upon 
expenditures by or on behalf of any candidate who has received the 
nomination. Ry section 19 of the same statute ‘‘public office” is 
made to apply to any national office filled by the voters of the State, 
as well as to the office of presidential elector and United States Sena¬ 
tor. The acts of Congress in connection with the statutes of the 
State limit the amount that a candidate for Senator of the United 

21 


22 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


States may give, contribute, expend, use, or promise, or cause to be 
given, contributed, expended, used, or promised, in procuring his 
nomination and election, to $3,750 in the aggregate, aside from those 
expenditures that are specifically permitted without limit. 

Plaintiffs in error were indicted and convicted in the United States 
district court for a conspiracy (sec. 37, Criminal Code) to commit 
an offense against the United States, to wit, the offense, on the part 
of Truman H. Newberry, of willfully violating the acts of Congress 
above referred to by giving, contributing, expending, and using, and 
by causing to be given, contributed, expended, and used, in pro¬ 
curing his nomination and election as Senator of the United States at 
the primary and general elections in the year 1918, a sum in excess 
of the amount thus limited, to wit, the sum of $100,000, and on the 
part of the other defendants of aiding, counseling, inducing, and 
procuring (sec. 332, Criminal Code) said Truman H. Newberry so to 
give, contribute, expend, and use, and cause to be given, contributed, 
expended, and used said large sums of money in excess of the 
amounts permitted, etc.; no part of which money was to be expended 
for any of the purposes specifically permitted without limit; numerous 
overt acts being alleged to have been done by one or more parties 
defendant to effect the object of the conspiracy. 

The averments of the indictment and tfye evidence at the trial 
related especially to expenditures contemplated to be made, and in 
fact made, to bring about Mr. Newberry’s selection at a nominating 
or primary election held in August, 1918, with only minor expendi¬ 
tures made after that date and in contemplation of the general elec¬ 
tion which was held in the following November. The case is brought 
to this court by direct writ of error, upon the fundamental contention 
that the acts of Congress, in so far as they assume to regulate primary 
elections and limit the expenditures of money that may be made or 
caused to be made by a candidate therein, are in excess of the power 
conferred upon Congress to regulate the “ manner of holding elec¬ 
tions for Senators and Representatives” by section 4 of Article I of 
the Constitution of the United States. This question was raised, 
but not decided, in United States v. Gradwell (243 U. S., 476, 487- 
488); Blair v. United States (250 U. S., 273, 278-279). 

For reasons to be stated below I consider it erroneous to treat the 
question as dependent upon the words of the cited section alone. I 
will, however, first deal with that section, viewing it in connection 
with other provisions immediately associated with it and here quoted: 

Article I. Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
Congress of the United Statse, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Repre¬ 
sentatives. 

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen 
every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State 
shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of 
the State Legislature. * * *” 

(Section 3 is superseded by the seventeenth amendment, which 
provides:) 

Article XVII. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators 
from each State, elected by the people thereof, * * * The electors in each State 
shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of 
the State legislatures. * * * 

Section 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and 
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL, 23 

the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter su-ch Regulations, except as to 
the Places of chusing Senators. * * * 

Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifica¬ 
tions of its own Members, * * * ” 

It is contended that Congress has no power to regulate the amount 
of money that may be expended by a candidate to secure his being 
named in the primary election; that the power “ to regulate the man¬ 
ner of holding elections/’ etc., relates solely to the general elections 
where Senators or Representatives are finally chosen. Why should 
“the manner of holding elections” be so narrowly construed? An 
election is the choosing of a person by vote to fill a public office. In 
the nature of things it. is a complex process, involving some examina¬ 
tion of the qualifications of those from whom the choice is to be made 
and of those by whom it is to be made; some opportunity for the 
electors to consider and canvass .the claims of the eligibles; and 
some method of narrowing the choice by eliminating candidates until 
one finally secures a majority, or at least a plurality, of the votes. 
For the process of elimination, instead of tentative elections partici¬ 
pated in by all the electors, nominations by parties or groups of 
citizens have obtained in the United States from an early period. 
Latterly the processes of nomination have been regulated by law in 
many of the States through the establishment of official primary 
elections. But in the essential sense, a sense that fairly comports 
with the object and purpose of a Constitution such as ours, which 
deals in broad outline with matters of substance and is remarkable 
for succinct and pithy modes of expression, all of the various proc¬ 
esses above indicated fall fairly within the definition of “the manner 
of holding elections.” This is not giving to the word “elections” a 
significance different from that which it bore when the Constitution 
was adopted, but is simply recognizing a content that of necessity 
always inhered in it. The nature of that instrument required, as 
Chief Justice Marshall pointed out in McCulloch v. Maryland (4 
Wheat., 316, 407), “that only its great outlines should be marked, 
its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which 
compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects 
themselves.” 

It is said that section 4 of Article I does not confer a general power 
to regulate elections, but only to regulate “the manner of holding” 
them. But this can mean nothing less than the entire mode of pro¬ 
cedure—the essence, not merely the form, of conducting the elections. 
The only specific grant of power over the subject contained in the 
Constitution is contained in that section, and the power is conferred 
primarily upon the legislatures of the several States, but subject to 
revision and modification by Congress. If the preliminary processes 
of such an election are to be treated as something so separate from 
the final choice that they are not within the power of Congress under 
this provision, they are for the same reason not within the power of 
the States, and, if there is no other grant of power, they must per¬ 
force remain wholly unregulated. For if this section of the Constitu¬ 
tion is to be strictly construed with respect to the power granted to 
Congress thereunder, it must be construed with equal strictness with 
respect to the power conferred upon the States; if the authority to 
regulate the “manner of holding elections” does not carry with it 
ex vi termini authority to regulate the preliminary election held for 


24 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


the purpose of proposing candidates, then the States can no more 
exercise authority over this than Congress can, much less an author¬ 
ity exclusive of that of Congress. For the election of Senators and 
Representatives in Congress is a Federal function; whatever the 
States do in the matter they do under authority derived from the 
Constitution of the United States. The reservation contained in the 
tenth amendment can not properly operate upon this subject in favor 
of the State governments; they could not reserve power over a mat¬ 
ter that had no previous existence; hence if the power was not dele¬ 
gated to the United States it must be deemed to have been reserved 
to the people and would require a constitutional amendment to 
bring it into play—a deplorable result of strict construction. 

But if I am wrong in this, and the power to regulate primary 
elections could be deemed to have been reserved by the States to 
the exclusion of Congress, the result would be to leave the General 
Government destitute of the means to insure its own preservation 
without governmental aid from the States, which they might either 
grant or withhold according to their own will. This would render 
the Government of the United States something less than supreme 
in the exercise of its own appropriate powers; a doctrine supposed 
to have been laid at rest forever by the decisions of this court in 
McCulloch v. Maryland (4 Wheat., 316, 405, et seq.); Cohens v. 
Virginia (6 Wheat., 264, 381, 387, 414); and many other decisions 
in the time of Chief Justice Marshall and since. 

But why should the primary election (or nominating conven¬ 
tion) and the final election be treated as things so separate and 
apart as not to be both included in section 4 of Article I ? The 
former has no reason for existence, no function to perform, except 
as a preparation for the latter; and the latter has been found by 
experience in many States impossible of orderly and successful accom¬ 
plishment without the former. 

Why should this provision of the Constitution—so vital to the 
very structure of the Government—be so narrowly construed ? 
It is said primaries were unknown when the Constitution was adopted. 
So were the steam railway and the electric telegraph. But the 
authority of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States 
was extended over these instrumentalities, because it was recognized 
that the manner of conducting the commerce was not essential. And 
this court was prompt to recognize that a transportation of merchan¬ 
dise, incidentally interrupted for a temporary purpose, or proceeding 
under successive bills of lading or means of transport, some operating 
wholly intrastate, was none the less interstate commerce, if such 
commerce was the practical and essential result of all that was 
done. (The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall., 557, 565; Southern Pacific 
Terminal Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm., 219 U. S., 498, 526, 527; 
Ohio R. R. Comm. v. Worthington, 225 U. S., 101, 108, 110; United 
States v. Union Stock Yard, 226 U. S., 286, 304; Texas & N. O. 
R. R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U. S., Ill, 124.) 

Why is it more difficult to recognize the integral relation of the 
several steps in the process of election ? 

Congress, by the so-called enforcement act of May 31, 1870 (ch. 
114, sec. 20, 16 Stat., 140, 145), and the supplement approved 
February 28, 1871 (ch. 99, secs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 16 Stat., 433, 434), pre¬ 
scribed a variety of regulations relating to elections of Members 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


25 


of the House of Representatives, including provisions for safe¬ 
guarding the registration of voters. These were carried into the 
Revised Statutes as sections 2011, 2016, 2021, 2022, 5522. They 
were attacked as unconstitutional in Ex parte Siebold (100 U. S., 
371), and were sustained as an exertion of the authority of Congress 
to pass laws for regulating and superintending such elections and 
for securing their purity—without suggestion that the registra¬ 
tion of voters was not, for practical purposes, a part of the election 
itself and subject to regulation as such. Yet, in point of causation, 
identification of voters is related to the election as closely as is 
the naming of candidates. 

It is said that if “the mariner of holding elections” had been 
understood in a sense to include the nominating procedure, ratifica¬ 
tion of the Constitution by the State conventions could not have 
been secured. I do not see how this can be confidently asserted, in 
view of the fact that, by the very hypothesis, the conventions rati¬ 
fied a specific provision for regulating the only manner of holding 
elections with which they were familiar—dealt with the entire sub¬ 
ject without limitation. Mr. Justice Story, in rehearsing the objec¬ 
tions, and the reasoning by which they wxre met, with citations 
from the debates and from the Federalist, refers to no objection that 
would be more cogent, supposing the regulation were extended to 
nominating procedure, than it would be if the regulation were con¬ 
fined to the ultimate election. (Story Const., secs. 814-827.) The 
sufficient answer to all objections was found in Hamilton’s “plain 
proposition, that every government ought to contain in itself the 
means of its own preservation.” (Federalist, No. 59.) 

What was said, in No. 60 of the Federalist, about the authority of 
the National Government being restricted to the regulation of the 
times, the places, and the manner of elections, was in answer to a 
criticism that the national power over the subject “might be employed 
in such a manner as to promote the election of some favorite class of 
men in exclusion of others,” as by discriminating “between the 
different departments of industry, or between the different kinds of 
property, or between the different degrees of property;” or by a 
leaning “ in favor of the landed interest, or the moneyed interest, or 
the mercantile interest, or the manufacturing interest;” and it was 
to support his contention that there was “no method of securing 
to the rich the preference apprehended but by prescribing qualifi¬ 
cations of property either for those who may elect or be elected,” 
which formed no part of the power to be conferred upon the National 
Government, that Hamilton proceeded to say that its authority 
would be “expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the 
places, and the manner of elections.” This authority would be as 
much restricted, in the sense there intended, if “the manner of 
elections” were construed to include all the processes of election from 
first to last. The restriction arose from the express qualifications 
prescribed for Members of House and Senate and for those who were 
to choose them; subject to which all regulation of preliminary as 
well as of final steps in the election necessarily would have to proceed. 

In support of a narrow construction of the power of Congress to 
regulate “the manner of elections’’ of its membership, it is said 
there is a check against corruption and kindred evils affecting the 
nominating procedure in the authority of each House to judge of 


26 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members; the 
suggestion being that if—to take a clear case—it appeared that one 
chosen to the Senate had secured his election through bribery and 
corruption at the nominating primary, he might be refused admit¬ 
tance. Obviously, this amounts to a concession that the primary 
and the definitive election, whose legal separateness is insisted upon, 
are essentially but parts of a single process; else how could the 
conduct of a candidate with reference to the primary have legitimate 
bearing upon the question of his election as Senator? But the 
suggestion involves a fundamental error of reasoning. The power 
to judge of the elections and qualifications of its members, inhering 
in each House by virtue of section 5 of Article I, is an important 
power, essential in our system to the proper organization of an 
elective body of Representatives. But it is a power to judge, to 
determine upon reasonable consideration of pertinent matters of fact 
according to established principles and rules of law; not to pass an 
arbitrary edict of exclusion. And I am unable to see how, in right 
reason, it can be held that one of the Houses of Congress, in the just 
exercise of its power, may exclude an elected member for securing by 
bribery his nomination at the primary if the regulation by law of his 
conduct at the primary is beyond the constitutional power of Con¬ 
gress itself. Moreover, the power of each House, even if it might 
rightfully be applied to exclude a Member in the case suggested, is not 
an adequate check upon bribery, corruption, and other irregularities 
in the primary elections. It can impose no penal consequences upon 
the offender; when affirmatively exercised it leaves the constituency 
for the time without proper representation; it may exclude one 
improperly elected, but furnishes no rule for the future by which the 
selection of a fit Representative may be assured; and it is exerted at 
the will of but a single House, not by Congress as a law-making body. 

But if I am wrong thus far—if the word ‘‘elections” in Article I, 
section 4 of the Constitution must be narrowly confined to the single 
and definitive step described as an election at the time that instru¬ 
ment was adopted—nevertheless it seems to me too clear for dis¬ 
cussion that primary elections and nominating conventions are so 
closely related to the final election, and their proper regulation so 
essential to effective regulation of the latter, so vital to representa¬ 
tive government that power to regulate them is within the general 
authority of Congress. 

It is matter of common knowledge that the great mass of the 
American electorate is grouped into political parties, to one or the 
other of which voters adhere with tenacity, due to their divergent 
views on questions of public policy, their interest, their environ¬ 
ment, and various other influences, sentimental and historical. 
So strong with the great majority of voters are party associations, 
so potent the party slogan, so effective the party organization, that 
the likelihood of a candidate succeeding in an election without a 
party nomination is practically negligible. As a result, every 
voter comes to the polls on the day of the general election confined 
in his choice to those few candidates who have received party nomi¬ 
nations, and constrained to consider their eligibility, in point of 
personal fitness, as affected by their party associations and their obli¬ 
gation to pursue more or less definite lines of policy, with which the 
voter may or may not agree. As a practical matter, the ultimate 


27 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 

choice of the mass of voters is predetermined when the nominations 
have been made. Hence, the authority of Congress to regulate the 
primary elections and nominating conventions arises, of necessity, 
not from any indefinite or implied grant of power, but from one 
clearly expressed in the Constitution itself (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 18): 
“ To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carry¬ 
ing into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers 
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, 
or in any Department or Officer thereof.” This is the power pre¬ 
servative of all others, and essential for adding vitality to the 
framework of the Government. Among the primary powers to be 
carried into effect is the power to legislate through a Congress con¬ 
sisting of a Senate and Plouse of Representatives chosen by the 
people—in short, the power to maintain a law-making body repre¬ 
sentative in its character. Another is the specific power to regulate 
the “manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives,” 
conferred by section 4 of the first article; and if this does not in 
literal terms extend to nominating proceedings intimately related 
to the election itself, it certainly does not in terms or by implica¬ 
tion exclude Federal control of those proceedings. From a grant 
to the States of power to regulate the principal matter, expressly 
made subject to revision and alteration by the Congress, it is im¬ 
possible to imply a grant to the States of regulatory authority over 
accessory matters exclusive of the Congress. And it is obvious that 
if clause 18 adds nothing to the content of the other express powers, 
when these are literally interpreted, it has no efficacy whatever and 
must be treated as surplusage. It has not, heretofore, been so 
regarded. The subject was exhaustively treated by Chief Justice 
Marshall, speaking for the court in the great case already referred 
to (McCulloch v. Marvland, 4 Wheat., 316, 411-424) where he pointed 
out (pp. 419, 420): 

First. The clause is placed among the powers of Congress, not among the limita¬ 
tions on those powers. 

Second. Its terms purport to enlarge, not to diminish, the powers vested in the 
Government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already 
granted. 

According to the conclusive reasoning adopted in that case, what¬ 
ever meaning may be attributed to section 4 of Article I, there is 
added by clause 18 of section 8 everything necessary or proper for 
carrying it into execution—which means, into practical and com¬ 
plete effect. 

The passage of the act under consideration amounts to a deter¬ 
mination by the law-making body that the regulation of primary 
elections and nominating conventions is necessary if the Senate and 
House of Representatives are to be, in a full and proper sense, repre¬ 
sentative of the people. Not only is this true of those cases referred 
to in the report of the Senate committee (S. Rept. No. 78, 62d Cong., 
1st sess., p. 2), where the parties are so unequally divided that a 
nomination by the majority party is equivalent to election; but 
it is true in every case to the extent that the nominating processes 
virtually eliminate from consideration by the electors alt eligible 
candidates except the few—two or three, perhaps—who succeed in 
receiving party nominations. Sinister influences exerted upon the 
primaries inevitably have their effect upon the ultimate election— 
are employed for no other reason. To safeguard the final elections 


28 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


while leaving the proceedings for proposing candidates unregulated T 
is to postpone regulation until it is comparatively futile. And Con¬ 
gress might well conclude that, if the nominating procedure were 
to be left open to fraud, bribery, and corruption, or subject to the 
more insidious but (in the opinion of Congress) nevertheless harm¬ 
ful influences resulting from an unlimited expenditure of money in 
paid propaganda and other purchased campaign activities, represen¬ 
tative government would be endangered. 

The question of the authority of Congress to determine that laws 
regulating primary elections are “ necessary and proper for carrying 
into execution ” the other powers specified, admits of but one answer—- 
the same given by Chief Justice Marshall in the memorable case last 
cited (4 Wheat., 421): 

We think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legis¬ 
lature that discretion, with respect to the means bv which the powers it confers are 
to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties 
assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, 
let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, 
which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited but consist with the 
letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional. 

This principle has been consistently adhered to and liberally 
applied from that day until this. Among a multitude of illustra¬ 
tive cases that might be cited, some recent notable, but not excep¬ 
tional, ones may be instanced: Second Employers Liability cases 
(223 U. S., 1, 49), holding that the power of Congress to regulate 
commerce among the States brings within its authority the relations 
between common carriers by rail and their employees engaged in 
such commerce; Houston & Texas Ry. v. LTnited States, (234 U. S., 
342, 350, 355), holding that the same power authorizes Congress to 
regulate rates of transportation in the internal commerce of a State 
to the extent of preventing injurious discrimination against the 
movement of traffic from State to State; Wilson v. New (243 U. S., 
332, 353), holding that the power over interstate commerce extends 
to regulating the wages of the employees of common carriers engaged 
therein; Selective Draft Law Cases (245 U. S., 366, 377, et seq.), 
sustaining an act imposing involuntary military duty upon the citi¬ 
zen as “ necessary and proper for carrying into execution ’’ the power 
to declare war, raise and support armies, and make rules for the 
government and regulation oi the land and naval forces; United 
States v. Ferger (250 U. S., 199, 205), upholding the authority of 
Congress to prohibit and punish the fraudulent making of spurious 
interstate bills of lading even in the absence of any actual or con¬ 
templated movement of commerce from State to State; Hamilton 
v. Kentucky Distilleries Co. (251 U. S., 146, 155, 163), sustaining 
war-time prohibition of the sale of distilled spirits for beverage 
purposes as a measure necessary and proper for carrying into exe¬ 
cution the war power; Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey (251 U. S., 264, 
282, 299-301), sustaining an act prohibiting the manufacture and 
sale of nonintoxicating beer as “necessary and proper” to render 
effective a prohibition against intoxicants; First National Bank v. 
Union Trust Co. (244 U. S., 416, 419), sustaining an act conferring 
upon national banks powers not inherently Federal but deemed 
appropriate to enable such banks to compete with State banks having 
like powers; and Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. (decided 
Feb. 28 last), sustaining an act establishing Federal land banks and 
joint-stock land banks having broad powers not national in their 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


29 


character, but deemed by Congress to be reasonably appropriate 
for performing certain limited fiscal functions in aid of the National 
Treasury. 

It would be tragic if that provision of the Constitution which 
has proved the sure defense of every outpost of national power 
should fail to safeguard the very foundation of the citadel. 

But its function in preserving our representative Government 
has long been recognized. In Ex parte Yarbrough (110 U. S., 651), 
where the question was as to the constitutionality of sections 5508 
and 5520, Revised Statutes of the United States—the question 
haying arisen upon an indictment for a conspiracy to intimidate a 
citizen of African descent in the exercise of his right to vote for a 
Member of Congress—the court, by Mr. Justice Miller, said (p. 657): 

That a government whose essential character is republican, wliose executive head 
and legislative body are both elective, whose most m merous and powerful branch 
of the legislature is elected by the people directly [now true of both branches!, has 
no power by appropriate laws to secure this election from the influence of violence, 
of corruption, and of fraud, is a proposition sostartlingas to arrest attention and demand 
the gravest consideration. If this Government is am thing more than a mere aggre¬ 
gation of delegated agents of other States and governments, each of which is superior 
to the General Government, it must have the power to protect the elections on which 
its existence depends from violence and corruption. If it has not this power it is 
left helpless before the two great natural and historical enemies of all republics, 
open violence and insidious corruption. The proposition that it has no such power 
is supported by the old argument, often heard, often repeated, and in this court never 
assented to. that when a question of the power of Congress arises the advocate of the 
power must be able to place his finger on words which expressly grant it. * * * It 
destroys at one blow, in construing the Constitution of the United States, the doctrine 
universally applied to all instruments of writing, that what is implied is as much a 
part of the instrument as what is expressed. This principle, in its application to the 
Constitution of the United States, more than to almost any other writing, is a necessity, 
by reason of the inherent inability to put into words all derivative powers—a diffi¬ 
culty which the instrument itself recognizes by conferring on Congress the authority 
to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the powers exrresslv 
granted and all other powers vested in the Government or any branch of it by the 
Constitution. (Art. I, sec. 8, clause 18.) 

I conclude that it is free from doubt that the Congress has power 
under the Constitution to regulate the conduct of primary elections 
and nominating conventions held for choosing candidates to be 
voted for in general elections for Representatives and Senators in 
Congress, .and that the provisions of the act of August 19, 1911 
(37 Stat., 26-28), in that behalf are valid. 

Since the majority of the court hold that the act is invalid, it 
would serve no useful purpose to spend time in discussing those as¬ 
signments of error that relate to the conduct of the trial. It may 
be said, however, that, in my opinion, the trial court did not err 
in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendants for want of evi¬ 
dence of the alleged conspiracy; nor in instructing the jury that 
the prohibition of the statute against the expenditure and use of 
money by a candidate beyond the specified limit is not confined 
to his own money, but extends to the expenditure or use of ex¬ 
cessive sums of money by him, from whatever source and from 
whomsoever derived; norMn instructing them that in order to 
warrant a verdict of guilty upon an indictment for conspiracy 
it was not necessary that the Government should show that defend¬ 
ants knew that some statute forbade the acts they were contemplat¬ 
ing, but only to show an agreement to do acts constituting a 
violation of the statute; their knowledge of the law being pre¬ 
sumed. 


30 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


I find prejudicial error, however, in that part of the charge 
which assumed to define the extent to which a candidate must 
participate in expenditures beyond the amount limited in order 
that he may be held to have violated the prohibition—an instruc¬ 
tion vitally important because it was largely upon overt acts sup¬ 
posed to have been done in carrying out the alleged conspiracy 
that the Government relied to prove the making of the conspiracy 
and its character, and because, unless the purposes of defendants 
involved a violation of the corrupt practices act, they were not 
guilty of a conspiracy to commit an “offense against the United 
States” within the meaning of section 37, Criminal Code. 

The instruction upon this topic, excepted to and assigned for 
error, was as follows: 

The phrase which constitutes the prohibition against the candidate, ''causing to be 
given, contributed, expended or used” excessive sums of money, is not limited and 
not confined to expenditures and use of money made directly and personally 
by himself. This prohibition extends to the expenditure and use of excessive 
sums of money in which the candidate actively participates, or assists, or advises, 
or directs, or induces, or procures. The prohibition extends not only to the ex¬ 
penditure and use of excessive sums of money by the candidate directly and person¬ 
ally, but to such use and expenditure through his agency, or procurement, or assist¬ 
ance. To constitute a violation of this statute knowledge of the expenditure and use 
of excessive sums of money on the part of the candidate is not sufficient; neither is it 
sufficient to constitute a violation of this statute that the candidate merely acquiesces 
in such expenditures and use. But it is sufficient to constitute a violation of this 
statute if the candidate actively participates in doing the things which occasion such 
expenditures and use of money and so actively participates with knowledge that the 
money is being expended and used. To apply these rules to this case: If you are 
satisfied from the evidence that the defendant, Truman H. Newberry, at or about the 
time that he became a candidate for United States Senator was informed and knew that 
his campaign for the nomination and election would require the expenditure and use 
of more money than is permitted by law and with such knowledge became a candidate, 
and thereafter by advice, by conduct, by his acts, by his direction, by his counsel, 
or by his procurement he actively participated and took part in the expenditure and 
use of an excessive sum of money, of an unlawful sum of money, you will be warranted 
in finding that he did violate this statute known as the corrupt practices act. 

However this may be regarded when considered in the abstract 
the difficulty with it, when viewed in connection with the evidence 
in the case to which the jury was called upon to apply it, is that 
it permitted and perhaps encouraged the jury to find the defend¬ 
ants guilty of a conspiracy to violate the corrupt practices act if 
they merely contemplated a campaign requiring the expenditure 
of money beyond the statutory limit, even though Mr. Newberry, 
the candidate, had not, and it was not contemplated that he should 
have, any part in causing or procuring such expenditure beyond 
his mere standing voluntarily as a candidate and participating in 
the campaign with knowledge that moneys contributed and expended 
by others without his participation were to be expended. 

The language of the corrupt practices act (37 Stat., 28) is: “No 
candidate * * * shall give, contribute, expend, use, or promise, 

or cause to be given, contributed, expended, used, or promised,” 
etc. A reading of the entire act makes it plain that Congress did 
not intend to limit spontaneous contributions of money by others 
than a candidate, nor expenditures of such money except as lie should 
participate therein. Of course, it does not mean that he must be 
alone in expending or causing to be expended the excessive sums of 
money; if he does it through an agent or agents, or through asso¬ 
ciates who stand in the position of agents, no doubt he is guilty; qui 


TRUMAN H. NEWBERRY ET AL. 


31 


facit per alium facit per se; but unless he is an offender as a prin¬ 
cipal there is no offense. Section 332, Criminal Code, declares: 
“"Whoever directly commits any act constituting an offense defined 
in any law of the United States, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, 
induces, or procures its commission, is a principal.” Clearly this 
makes anyone who abets a candidate in expending or causing to be 
expended excessive sums a principal offender; but it can not change 
the definition of the offense itself as contained in the corrupt prac¬ 
tices act, so as to make a candidate a principal offender unless he 
directly commits the offense denounced. Spontaneous expenditures 
by others being without the scope of the prohibition, neither he nor 
anybody else can be held criminally responsible for merely abetting 
such expenditures. 

It follows that one’s entry upon a candidacy for nomination and 
election as a Senator with knowledge that such candidacy will come 
to naught unless supported by expenditure of money beyond the 
specified limit, is not within the inhibition of the act unless it is 
contemplated that the candidate shall have a part in procuring the 
excessive expenditures beyond the effect of his mere candidacy in 
evoking spontaneous contributions and expenditures by his sup¬ 
porters; and that his remaining in the field and participating in 
the ordinary activities of the campaign with knowledge that such 
activities furnish in a general sense the “occasion” for the expendi¬ 
ture is not to be regarded as a “causing” by the candidate of such 
expenditure within the meaning of the statute. 

The state of the evidence made it important that, in connection 
with that portion of the charge above quoted, the jury should be 
cautioned that unless it was a part of defendant’s plan that Mr. 
Newberry should actually participate in giving, contributing, expend¬ 
ing, using, or promising, or causing to be given, contributed, expended, 
used, or promised moneys in excess of the limited amount—either 
himself or through others as his agents—his mere participation in 
the activities of the campaign, even with knowledge that moneys 
spontaneously contributed and expended by others, without his 
agency, procurement, or assistance, were to be or were being expended 
would not of itself amount to his causing such excessive expenditure. 
The effect‘of the instruction that was given may well have been to 
convey to the jury the view that Mr. Newberry’s conduct in becoming 
and remaining a candidate with knowledge that spontaneous contri¬ 
butions and expenditures of money by his supporters would exceed 
the statutory limit, and his active participation in the campaign, 
were necessarily equivalent to an active participation by him in 
causing the expenditure and use of an excessive sum of money, and 
that a combination among defendants having for its object Mr. 
Newberry’s participation in a campaign where money in excess of 
the prescribed limit was to be expended, even without his partici¬ 
pation in the contribution or expenditure of such money, amounted 
to a conspiracy on their part to commit an offense against the act. 

For error in the instructions in this particular the judgment 
should be reversed, with directions for a n«w trial. 


Mr. Justice Brandeis and Mr. Justice Clarke concur in this 
opinion. 





_ 1 _'_ 

•• } 


LAWS 

RELATING TO 

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS 


Public 36, 59th Congress, approved January 26, 1907 

Sec. 118, Criminal Code, March 3, 1909 

61st Congress, approved June 25, 1910 

62d Congress, approved August 19, 1911 

62d Congress, approved August 23, 1912 

65th Congress, approved October 16, 1918 


Printed for the use of the House Document Room 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1920 





[Public— No. 36.] 

An Act To prohibit corporations from making money contributions 
(n connection with political elections. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled , That it shall be unlawful for 
any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority' of any 
laws of Congress, to make a money contribution in connection with 
any election to any political office. It shall also be unlawful for any 
corporation whatever to make a money contribution in connection with 
any election at which Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors or a 
Representative in Congress is to be voted for or any election by any 
State legislature of a United States Senator. Every corporation which 
shall make any contribution in violation of the foregoing provisions 
shall be subject to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and every 
officer or director of any corporation who shall consent to any con¬ 
tribution by the corporation in violation of the foregoing provisions 
shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not exceeding one thou¬ 
sand and not less than two hundred and fifty dollars, or by imprison¬ 
ment for a term of not more than one year, or both such fine and 
imprisonment in the discretion of the court. 

Approved, January 26, 1907. 


Section 118 of the Criminal Code. 

Political contributions not to be solicited by officers named. (Vol. 22, p. 406.) 

Sec. 118. No Senator or Representative in or Delegate or Resident 
Commissioner to Congress, or Senator, Representative, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner elect, or officer or employee of either House 
of Congress, and no executive, judicial, military, or naval officer of 
the United States, and no clerk or employee of any department, 
branch, or bureau of the executive, judicial, or military or naval 
service of the United States, shall, directly or indirectly, solicit or 
receive, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving, any 
assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political purpose 
whatever, from any officer, clerk, or employee of the United States, 
or any department, branch, or bureau thereof, or from any person 
receiving any salary or compensation from moneys derived from the 
Treasury of the United States. 


(2) 


[Public —No. 274.] 

[H. R. 2250.] 

An Act Providing for publicity of contributions made for the purpose 
of influencing elections at which Representatives in Congress are elected. 


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the term “ political 
committee” under the provisions of this Act shall include the 
national committees of all political parties and the national congres¬ 
sional campaign committees of all political parties and all committees, 
associations, or organizations which shall in two or more States 
influence the result or attempt to influence the result of an election 
at which Representatives in Congress are to be elected. 

Sec. 2. That every political committee as defined in this Act shall 
have a chairman and a treasurer. It shall be the duty of the treasurer 
to keep a detailed and exact account of all money or its equivalent 
received by or promised to such committee or any member thereof, 
or by or to any person acting under its authority or in its behalf, and 
the name of every person, firm, association, or committee from whom 
received, and of all expenditures, disbursements, and promises of 
payment or disbursement made by the committee or any member 
thereof, or by any person acting under its authority or in its behalf, 
and to whom paid, distributed, or disbursed. No officer or member 
of such committee, or other person acting under its authority or in 
its behalf, shall receive any money or its equivalent, or expend or 
promise to expend any money on behalf of such committee, until 
after a chairman and treasurer of such committee shall have been 
chosen. 

Sec. 3. That every payment or disbursement made by a political 
committee exceeding ten dollars in amount be evidenced by a 
receipted bill stating the particulars of expense, and every such 
record, voucher, receipt, or account shall be preserved for fifteen 
months after the election to which it relates. 

Sec. 4. That whoever, acting under the authority or in behalf of 
such political committee, wdiether as a member thereof or otherwise, 
receives any contribution, payment, loan, gift, advance, deposit, or 
promise of money or its equivalent shall, on demand, and in any event 
within five days after the receipt of such contribution, payment, 
loan, gift, advance, deposit, or promise, render to the treasurer of 
such political committee a detailed account of the same, together 
with the name and address from whom received, and said treasurer 
shall forthwith enter the same in a ledger or record to be kept by him 
for that purpose. 

Sec. 5. That the treasurer of every such political committee shall, 
within thirty days after the election at which Representatives in 
Congress were chosen in two or more States, file with the Clerk of the 
House of Representatives at Washington, District of Columbia, an 
itemized, detailed statement, sworn to by said treasurer and con¬ 
forming to the requirements of the following section of this Act. 
The statement so hied with the Clerk of the House of Representa¬ 
tives shall be preserved by him for fifteen months, and shall be a part 
157442 9 —20 (3) 


4 


of the public records of his office, and shall be open to public 
inspection. 

Sec. 6. That the statements required by the preceding section of 
this Act shall state: 

First. The name and address of each person, firm, association 
or committee who or which has contributed, promised, loaned, or 
advanced to such political committee, or any officer, member, or 
agent thereof, either in one or more items, money or its equivalent of 
the aggregate amount or value of one hundred dollars or more. 

Second. The total sum contributed, promised, loaned, or advanced 
to such political committee, or to any officer, member, or agent 
thereof, in amounts less than one hundred dollars. 

Third. The total sum of all contributions, promises, loans, and 
advances received by such political committee or any officer, member, 
or agent thereof. 

Fourth. The name and address of each person, firm, association, or 
committee to whom such political committee, or any officer, member, 
or agent thereof, has disbursed, distributed, contributed, loaned, 
advanced, or promised anv sum of money or its equivalent of the 
amount or value of ten dollars or more, and the purpose thereof. 

Fifth. The total sum disbursed, distributed, contributed, loaned., 
advanced, or promised by such political committee, or any officer, 
member, or agent thereof, where the amount or value of such dis¬ 
bursement, distribution, loan, advance, or promise to any one person, 
firm, association, or committee in one or more items is less than ten 
dollars. 

Sixth. The total sum disbursed, distributed, contributed, loaned, 
advanced, or promised by such political committee or any officer, 
member, or agent thereof. 

Sec. 7. That every person, firm, association, or committee, except 
political committees as hereinbefore defined, that shall expend or 
promise any sum of money or other thing of value amounting to fifty 
dollars or more for the purpose of influencing or controlling, in two 
or more States, the result of an election at which Representatives to 
the Congress of the United States are elected, unless he or it shall 
contribute the same to a political committee as hereinbefore defined, 
shall file the statements of the same under oath, as required by section 
six of this Act, in the office of the Clerk of the House of Representa¬ 
tives, at Washington, District of Columbia, which statements shall 
be held by said Clerk in all respects as required by section five of this 
Act. 

Sec. 8. That any person may in connection with such election incur 
and pay from his own private funds for the purpose of influencing or 
controlling, in two or more States, the result of an election at which 
Representatives to the Congress of the United States are elected all 
personal expenses for his traveling and for purposes incidental to 
traveling, for stationery and postage, and for telegraph and tele¬ 
phone service without being subject to the provisions of this Act. 

Sec. 9. That nothing contained in this Act shall limit or affect the 
right of any person to spend money for proper legal expenses in 
maintaining or contesting the results of any election. 

Sec. 10. That every person willfully violating any of the foregoing 
provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than 
one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 

Approved, June 25, 1910. 


[Public —No. 32.] 

[H. R. 2958.] 

An Act To amend an act entitled “An act providing for publicity 
of contributions made for the purpose of influencing elections at which Representatives 
in Congress are elected” and extending the same to candidates for nomination and 
election to the offices of Representative and Senator in the Congress of the United 
States and limiting the amount of campaign expenses. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House oj Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled , That sections five, six, and 
eight of an Act entitled “An Act providing for publicity of con¬ 
tributions made for the purpose of influencing elections at which 
Representatives in Congress are elected ,” approved June twenty-fifth, 
nineteen hundred and ten, be, and the same are hereby, amended to 
read as follows: 

“Sec. 5. That the treasurer of every such political committee shall, 
not more than fifteen days and not less than ten days next before an 
election at which Representatives in Congress are to be elected in 
two or more States, file in the office of the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives at Washington, District of Columbia, with said 
Clerk, an itemized detailed statement; and on each sixth day there¬ 
after until such election said treasurer shall file with said Clerk a 
supplemental itemized detailed statement. Each of said statements 
shall conform to the requirements of the following section of this Act, 
except that the supplemental statement herein required need not 
contain any item of which publicity is given in a previous statement. 
Each of said statements shall be full and complete, and shall be signed 
and sworn to by said treasurer. 

“It shall also be the duty of said treasurer to file a similar state¬ 
ment with said Clerk within thirty days after such election, such final 
statement also to be signed and sworn to by said treasurer and to 
conform to the requirements of the following section of this Act. 
The statements so filed with the Clerk of the House shall be preserved 
by him for fifteen months and shall be a part of the public records of 
his office and shall be open to public inspection. 

“Sec. 6 . That the statements required by the preceding section of 
this Act shall state: 

“First. The name and address of each person, firm, association, or 
committee who or which has contributed, promised, loaned, or 
advanced to such political committee, or any officer, member, or agent 
thereof, either in one or more items, money or its equivalent of the 
aggregate amount or value of one hundred dollars or more, and the 
amount or sum contributed, promised, loaned, or advanced by each. 

“Second. The aggregate sum contributed, promised, loaned, or 
advanced to such political committee, or to any officer, member, or 
agent thereof, in amounts of less than one hundred dollars. 

“Third. The total sum of all contributions, promises, loans, and 
advances received by such political committee or any officer, member, 
or agent thereof. 


(5) 


6 


“Fourth. The name and address of each person, firm, association, 
or committee to whom such political committee, or any officer, mem¬ 
ber, or agent thereof, has distributed, disbursed, contributed, loaned, 
advanced, or promised any sum of money or its equivalent of the 
amount or value of ten dollars or more, stating the amount or sum 
distributed, disbursed, contributed, loaned, advanced, or promised to 
each, and the purpose thereof. 

“Fifth. The aggregate sum distributed, disbursed, contributed, 
loaned, advanced, or promised by such political committee, or any 
officer, member, or agent thereof, where the amount or value of such 
distribution, disbursement, loan, advance, or promise to any one 
person, firm, association, or committee in one or more items is less 
than ten dollars. 

“Sixth. The total sum disbursed, distributed, contributed, loaned, 
advanced, or promised by such political committee, or any officer, 
member, or agent thereof.’ ’ 

“Sec. 8. That any person may in connection with such election 
incur and pay from his own private funds for the purpose of influenc¬ 
ing or controlling, in two or more States, the results of an election at 
which Representatives to the Congress of the United States are 
elected, all necessary personal expenses for his traveling, for sta¬ 
tionery, and postage, and for telegraph and telephone service without 
being subject to the provisions of this Act.” 

Sec. 2. That section eight, as above amended, and sections nine and 
ten of said act be renumbered as sections nine, ten, and eleven, and 
that a new section be inserted after section seven of the said original 
act, to read as follows: 

“Sec. 8. The word ‘candidate’ as used in this section shall include 
all persons whose names are presented for nomination for Represent¬ 
ative or Senator in the Congress of the United States at any primary 
election or nominating convention, or for indorsement or election at 
any general or special election held in connection with the nomination 
or election of a person to fill such office, whether or not such persons 
are actually nominated, indorsed, or elected. 

“Every person wdio shall be a candidate for nomination at any 
primary election or nominating convention, or for election at any 
general or special election, as Representative in the Congress of the 
United States, shall, not less than ten nor more than fifteen days 
before the day for holding such primary election or nominating con¬ 
vention, and not less than ten nor more than fifteen days before the 
day of the general or special election at which candidates for Repre¬ 
sentatives are to be elected, file with the Clerk of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives at Washington, District of Columbia, a full, correct, and 
itemized statement of all moneys and things of value received by him 
or by anyone for him with his knowledge and consent, from any source, 
in aid or support of his candidacy, together with the names of all those 
who have furnished the same in whole or in part; and such statement 
shall contain a true and itemized account of all moneys and things of 
value given, contributed, expended, used, or promised by such candi¬ 
date, or by his agent, representative, or other person for and in lus 
behalf with his knowledge and consent, together with the names of 
all those to whom any and all such gifts, contributions, payments, or 
promises were made, for the purpose of procuring his nomination or 
election. 


7 


‘‘Every person who shall be a candidate for nomination at any 
primary election or nominating convention, or for indorsement at 
an y general or special election, or election by the legislature of any 
State, as Senator in the Congress of the United States, shall, not less 
than ten nor more than fifteen days before the day for holding such 
primary election or nominating convention, and not less than ten 
nor more than fifteen days before the day of the general or special 
election at which he is seeking indorsement, and not less than five 
nor more than ten days before the day upon which the first vote is to 
be taken in the two houses of the legislature before which he is a 
candidate for election as Senator, file with the Secretary of the Senate 
at Washington, District of Columbia, a full, correct, and itemized 
statement of all moneys and things of value received by him or by 
anyone for him with his knowledge and consent, from any source, in 
aid or support of his candidacy, together with the names of all those 
who have furnished the same in whole or in part; and such statement 
shall contain a true and itemized account of all moneys and things of 
value given, contributed, expended, used, or promised by such candi¬ 
date, or by his agent, representative, or other person for and in his 
behalf with his knowledge and consent, together with the names of all 
those to whom any and all such gifts, contributions, payments, or 
promises were made for the purpose of procuring his nomination or 
election. 

“Every such candidate for nomination at any primary election or 
nominating convention, or for indorsement or election at any general 
or special election, or for election by the legislature of any State, shall, 
within fifteen days after such primary election or nominating conven¬ 
tion, and within thirty days after any such general or special election, 
and within thirty days after the day upon which the legislature shall 
have elected a Senator, file with the Clerk of the House of Representa¬ 
tives or with the Secretary of the Senate, as the case may be, a full, 
correct, and itemized statement of all moneys and things of value 
received by him or by anyone for him with his knowledge and consent, 
from any source, in aid or support of his candidacy, together with the 
names of all those who have furnished the same m whole or in part; 
and such statement shall contain a true and itemized account of all 
moneys and things of value given, contributed, expended, used, or 
promised by such candidate, or by his agent, representative, or other 
person for and in his behalf with his knowledge and consent, up to, on, 
and after the day of such primary election, nominating convention, 
general or special election, or election by the legislature, together with 
the names of all those to whom any and all such gifts, contributions, 
payments, or promises were made for the purpose of procuring his 
nomination, indorsement, or election. 

“Every such candidate shall include therein a statement of every 
promise or pledge made by him, or by any one for him with his knowl¬ 
edge and consent or to whom he has given authority to make any such 
promise or pledge, before the completion of any such primary election 
or nominating convention or general or special election or election by 
the legislature, relative to the appointment or recommendation for 
appointment of any person to any position of trust, honor, or profit, 
either in the county, State, or Nation, or in any political subdivision 
thereof, or in any private or corporate employment, for the purpose 
of procuring the support of such person or of any person in his can- 


8 


didacy, and if any such promise or pledge shall have been made the 
name or names, the address or addresses, and the occupation or occu¬ 
pations, of the person or persons to whom such promise or pledge 
shall have been made, shall be stated, together with a description of 
the position relating to which such promise or pledge has been made. 
In the event that no such promise or pledge has been made by such 
candidate, that fact shall be distinctly stated. 

“No candidate for Representative in Congress or for Senator of the 
United States shall promise any office or position to any person, or to 
use his influence or to give Ids support to any person for any office or 
position for the purpose of procuring the support of such person, or 
of any person, in his candidacy; nor shall any candidate for Senator 
of the United States give, contribute, expend, use, or promise any 
money or thing of value to assist in procuring the nomination or elec¬ 
tion of any particular candidate for the legislature of the State in 
which he resides, but such candidate may, within the limitations and 
restrictions and subject to the requirements of this act, contribute to 
political committees having charge of the disbursement of campaign 

“No candidate for Representative in Congress or for Senator of the 
United States shall give, contribute, expend, use, or promise, or cause 
to be given, contributed, expended, used, or promised, in procuring 
his nomination and election, any sum, in the aggregate, in excess of 
the amount which he may lawfully give, contribute, expend, or 
promise under the laws of the State in which he resides: Provided , 
That no candidate for Representative in Congress shall give, con¬ 
tribute, expend, use, or promise any sum, in the aggregate, exceeding 
five thousand dollars in any campaign for his nomination and election; 
and no candidate for Senator of the United States shall give, con¬ 
tribute, expend, use, or promise any sum, in the aggregate, exceeding 
ten thousand dollars in any campaign for his nomination and election: 
Provided jurther , That money expended by any such candidate to 
meet and discharge any assessment, fee, or charge made or levied 
upon candidates by the laws of the State in which he resides, or for 
his necessary personal expenses, incurred for himself alone, for travel 
and subsistence, stationery and postage, writing or printing (other 
than in newspapers), and distributing letters, circulars, and posters, 
and for telegraph and telephone service, shall not be regarded as an 
expenditure within the meaning of this section, and shall not be con¬ 
sidered any part of the sum herein fixed as the limit of expense and 
need not be shown in the statements herein required to be fded. 

“The statements herein required to be made and filed before the 
general election, or the election by the legislature at which such can¬ 
didate seeks election, need not contain items of which publicity is 
given in a previous statement, but the statement required to be 
made and filed after said general election or election by the legisla¬ 
ture shall, in addition to an itemized statement of all expenses not 
theretofore given publicity, contain a summary of all preceding state¬ 
ments. 

“Any person, not then a candidate for Senator of the United 
States, who shall have given, contributed, expended, used, or prom¬ 
ised any money or thing of value to aid or assist in the nomination 
or election of any particular member of the legislature of the State 
in which he resides, shall, if he thereafter becomes a candidate for 


9 


such office, or if he shall thereafter be elected to such office without 
becoming a candidate therefor, comply with all of the provisions of 
this section relating to candidates for such office, so far as the same 
may be applicable; and the statement herein required to be made, 
verified, and filed after such election shall contain a full, true, and 
itemized account of each and every gift, contribution, expenditure, 
and promise whenever made, in any wise relating to the nomination 
or election of members of the legislature of said State, or in any wise 
connected with or pertaining to his nomination and election of which 
publicity is not given in a previous statement. 

“Every statement herein required shall be verified by the oath or 
affirmation of the candidate, taken before an officer authorized to 
administer oaths under the laws of the State in which he is a candi¬ 
date, and shall be sworn to or affirmed by the candidate in the dis¬ 
trict in which he is a candidate for Representative, or the State in 
which he is a candidate for Senator in the Congress of the Unitea 
States: Provided, That if at the time of such primary election, nomi¬ 
nating convention, general or special election, or election by the 
State legislature said candidate shall be in attendance upon either 
House of Congress as a Member therof, he may at his election verify 
such statements before any officer authorized to administer oaths in 
the District of Columbia: Provided further, That the depositing of 
any such statement in a regular post office, directed to the Clerk of 
the House of Representatives or to the Secretary of the Senate, as 
the case may be, duly stamped and registered within the time 
required herein shall be deemed a sufficient filing of any such state¬ 
ment under any of the provisions of this Act. 

‘‘This Act shall not be construed to annul or vitiate the laws of 
any State, not directly in conflict herewith, relating to the nomination 
or election of candidates for the offices herein named, or to exempt 
any such candidate from complying with such State laws.” 

Approved, August 19, 1911. 


[Public —No. 298.] 

[H. R. 26278.] 

An Act Amending paragraph ten of section eight of an Act entitled 
■“An Act providing for publicity of contributions made for the purpose of influencing 
elections at which Representatives in Congress are elected,” approved June twenty- 
fifth, nineteen hundred and ten, as amended by section two of an Act entitled “An 
Act to amend an Act entitled ‘An Act providing for publicity of contributions made 
for the purpose of influencing elections at which Representatives in Congress are 
elected’ and extending the same to candidates for nomination and election to the 
offices of Representative and Senator in the Congress of the United States and limiting 
the amount of campaign expenses,” approved August nineteenth, nineteen hundred 
and eleven. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled , That paragraph ten of sec¬ 
tion eight of an Act entitled “An Act providing for publicity of 
contributions made for the purpose of influencing elections at which 
Representatives in Congress are elected,” approved June twenty-fifth, 
nineteen hundred and ten, as amended by section two of an Act 
entitled “An Act to amend an Act entitled ‘An Act providing for 
publicity of contributions made for the purpose of influencing elec¬ 
tions at which Representatives in Congress are elected/ and extending 
the same to candidates for nomination and election to the offices of 
Representative and Senator in the Congress of the United States 
and limiting the amount of campaign expenses,” approved August 
nineteenth, nineteen hundred and eleven, be, and the same is hereby, 
amended so as to read as follows: 

“Every statement herein required shall be verified by the oath or 
affirmation of the candidate, taken before an officer authorized to 
administer oaths; and the depositing of any such statement in a 
regular post office, directed to the Clerk of the House of Represent¬ 
atives, or to the Secretary of the Senate, as the case may be, duly 
stamped and registered, within the time required herein/shall be 
deemed a sufficient filing of any such statement under any of the 
provisions of this Act. ’ 5 

Approved August 23, 1912. 


( 10 ) 


[Public—N o 222—65 th Congress.] 

[S. 3438.] 

An Act To prevent corrupt practices in the election of Senators, 
Representatives, or Delegates in Congress. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled , That whoever shall promise, 
offer, or give, or cause to be promised, offered, or given, any money or 
other thing of value, or shall make or tender any contract, undertak¬ 
ing, obligation, gratuity, or security for the payment of money or for 
the delivery or conveyance of anything of value to any person, either 
to vote or withhold his vote or to vote for or against any candidate, 
or whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any money or other thing of 
value in consideration of his vote for or against any candidate for 
Senator or Representative or Delegate in Congress at any primary or 
general or special election, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or 
imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 

Approved, October 16, 1918. 


(ll) 


O 









































t/. «S. (5 dUuuuU** Q^J <Jjudjt~4-*-* Ht; j ,. 

House Calendar No. 109. 

67th Congress,) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ( Report 
2d Session, j | No. 498. 


CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE OF RAINEY v. SHAW. 


December 6, 1921.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. 


Mr. Luce, from the Committee on Elections No. 2, submitted the 

following 

REPORT. 

The Committee on Elections No. 2, to which was referred the con¬ 
tested-election case of Henry T. Rainey v. Guy L. Shaw, from the 
twentieth congressional district of the State of Illinois, reports as 
follows: 

Guy L. Shaw, it is admitted, received a majority of the votes cast 
at the election November 2, 1920. His seat is contested by Henry T. 
Rainey by reason of circumstances connected with the corrupt prac¬ 
tices act and the statute relating to procedure in election contests. 
An allegation of improper use of certain funds received by Mr. Shaw 
was not supported by any evidence whatever, nor was it further 
pressed upon the committee, by argument or otherwise. There was 
no charge of illegitimate use of money among the voters of the dis¬ 
trict, nor of expenditure beyond the limit prescribed by law. In the 
end the contestant restricted his contentions to matters of failure 
to comply with statutory requirements. 

After iiotice of contest had been filed, the Supreme Court, in the 
case of Truman H. Newberry et. al. v. The United States, gave an 
opinion, May 2, 1921, bearing upon the corrupt practices act. As to 
the effect thereof, the Attorney General has advised your committee 
as follows: 

It is my opinion that the Newberry decision should be construed as in¬ 
validating all of the provisions of the act referred to. relating to nominations 
for the office of Senator or Representative in Congress, whether by primaries, 
nominating conventions, or by indorsement at general or special elections. I 
am also of the opinion that as to statements of receipts and disbursements to 
lie filed by candidates for the office of Representative in Congress under sec¬ 
tion 8 of the act, the only provision now in force and effect is the one which 
requires such statements to be filed in connection with the election of such 
candidates. 

Agreeing with this view, we conclude that such of the allegations 
of the contestant as concerned the primaries in the district in ques¬ 
tion fall to the ground, by reason of the unconstitutionality of so 
much of the act as related to nominations; but that those allegations 












2 CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE OF RAINEY VS. SHAW. 

» connected with the election should be considered. These center upon 
the contention that Mr. Shaw should be held to be disqualified be¬ 
cause he failed to file within the time prescribed statements of his 
.receipts and expenses in connection with the election. On this point 
the testimony of Mr. Shaw is to the effect that he duly mailed such 
statements. They were not received by the Clerk of the House. Had 
Mr. Shaw taken advantage of the statute and sent the documents by 
registered mail, no question would have arisen. However, the law 
does not make registration a requisite, and, as a matter of fact, many 
returns forwarded without registration have been unhesitatingly ac¬ 
cepted. Apart from the nonarrival of the statements, there *was no 
evidence tending to contradict Mr. Shaw’s testimony, but, on the other 
hand, there was evidence to the effect that at least some of the state¬ 
ments had been duly prepared. With the case so standing, it seemed 
clear to your committee that in this particular no sufficient reason 
had been advanced for declaring Mr. Shaw to be disqualified, even 
if it were to be assumed that the requirements of law in the matter of 
filing statements are mandatory rather than directory. Therefore 
that question need not here be once more discussed, though in passing 
it may not be undesirable to point out that the precedents support in 
general the view that such requirements are directory and therefore 
that failure to observe them will not of itself invalidate an election. 

The only other contention seriously pressed in behalf of the con¬ 
testant was that Mr. Shaw had failed to comply with the statutory 
requirement for the filing of an answer to notice of contest within 
a stipulated time. Here the evidence showed no willful neglect on 
the part of Mr. Shaw, nor any injury to Mr. Rainey. Mr. Shaw 
appears to have erred in his understanding as to what would be a 
compliance with the law, and did not receive legal advice in the mat¬ 
ter until the time for proper reply had passed, but a proper reply 
was then made, and in ample time to protect all of Mr. Rainey’s 
rights. Under such circumstances, where no harm has resulted to 
anybody, where no act or failure to act has shown moral obliquity, 
where no statutory purpose has been thwarted to the public detri¬ 
ment, there is no ground for the contention that a district ought to 
be deprived of the services of its duly chosen representative, or that 
the dignity or the honor of the House calls for his exclusion. 

Therefore the committee recommends to the House the adoption 
of the following resolutions: 

Resolved, That Henry T. Rainey was not elected a Representative in this 
Congress from the twentieth congressional district of the State of Illinois 
and is not entitled to a seat herein. 

Resolved, That Guy L. Shaw was duly elected a Representative in this Con¬ 
gress from the twentieth congressional district of the Slat * of Illinois and is 
entitled to retain a seat herein. 










































































































































































































































































I*.. 0 * *0. 



A c 0 " 0 4 <4> 

<1^ • crC^V % ^ ’'P 

^ok ^ 


V V^-*V v^v V^\/ 

<0 r »!,••* V »•?% q. ,<y ,»•», ^ V *» 


V 0 




<k *'..•• ,G V o, - 

. V ^4^.V 




4 0* 




a 0 v*. 

o ->WV o ^ ‘ 

% * • ■ “" A 0 V 

■$» ,A * 


>• ** v % / \ \ 
/> .o.. % ' • “‘ 0 *°,.‘'_•. V ° 

° \N '*^N§S^ > V' 6 ♦* 

o /t\^S^\\i!x^ *» -*p. 4 *“^ vX 

^ Cr • I * c 


o v 



vPG 

-. > v, V 

‘ A • • • 

A C°“". ^6 

.1 d- • * *P 

<N <. <5N\\\n'k >» 

o > . /7 w?iy£. * cr 



s «y o . 

•*’• <r * 

v *^L'- o 

• ^ a^ * 



• 

G v V A 

o* •'>'•* *6 aV 




\ V • - 0 a 0 <J> *'' 4 V 

v ,* 1 ^* ^ «,o v .’•®^ <> v- *» 

>* ,«.^ °5^ °A^pPf* «.'> V ^ J -.^^p, < “ ^'V, •>. 

r ^ * * * 4 S* ' D *p "° m ' * A ‘ ..«’ a G^ <5 

. \ C° ..•^•- °o A 4 ^ c 0 4 O. 






, 0 ■ 


^ * 



O 

^ ’ • • 0 A v ’<5>4 

<%> sy 

v 3 . Str * ^(L Si -• 

'fv :, 




y %'• .0' 

v ^ .0^ .’ 

.wi?.' ,v^. 




‘ A <4 'A^’’ .©♦ *'?.T•'* a J ^ '♦. 

^ ,0^ 4 • 1 ' *-» jA 0 0 * •« , ^ ib 

<x 4 ASV\\>r>4^* Vy* 0 * #r/l??>, * S* • r c5^tVw # 

n»v 4 ^o-t :£mt^ .‘^ai*. > 




. A ^ 

, n o 'V . 

1 • .a . 0 &\ "' 4 

«0 f ’ * °- > V *• • • 

<£* *>Va° ^ a^ » 4 
V ' s§HPi * A "'jv • 

<\. 4, ' , ..»* .G^ c) '«>.» 

•. ^. .O 5, ^o 











LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 019 308 871 5 






















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































